<;^;s^'5^^^ 


NOV  12  1915 


^^. 


lUsm  tySS 


BX  8065  .S3613  1897 
Schodde,  George  Henry,  1854- 
1917,  I 

The  error  of  modern  Missouri 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/errorofmodernmisOOscho 


NOV  1 2  1915 

(Sin 

The  Error  of  Modern  Missouri: 


ITS  INCEPTION,  DEVELOPMENT, 
AND  REFUTATION, 

As  set  forth  in 

L    The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination :  A  Con- 
tribution to  its  History  and  Proper  Estimate. 

By   F.  W.   STELLHORN,   D.   D., 

Prof,  of  Theology  in  the  Ev.   Luth.   Seminary,  Columbus,  Ohio  ;    Author  of 
Woerterbuch  zum  griechischen  Neuen  Testament;  A  Brief  Com- 
mentary on  the   Books  of  the  New  Testament  ;    Anno- 
tations on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  the 
Lutheran    Commentary. 


IL    ^^  Intuitu  Fidei/^ 

By  REV.  F.  A.  SCHMIDT,  D.  D., 

Prof,  in  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Norwegian  United  Church, 
Minneapolis,   Minn. 


III.    A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine  of  Predes- 
tination recently  introduced  by  the  Missouri  Synod. 

By  SEVERAL  FORMER   MEMBERS  OF  THE 
MISSOURI  SYNOD. 


Translated   from   the    German.  , 

F  . '--  . '~-  .  Tre  see.-. ,  ^_Co-^n  ^^ , 
I' 
Edited  by  GEORGE  H.  SCHODDE,   Ph.  D., 
Prof,  of  Theology  in  the  Ev.   Luth.   Seminary,   Columbus,   Ohio. 


COLUMBUS,  OHIO  : 

LUTHERAN  BOOK  CONCERN 

1897 


INTRODUCTION. 


iT  is  a  matter  of  deep  regret  that  the  Synod  of  Mis- 
souri and  other  States  has,  for  the  past  twenty- 
years  and  more,  set  itself  against  the  faith  it  at 
one  time  was  the  chief  defender  and  promoter  of 
in  this  country.  Whether  the  membership  of  that 
body  are  aware  of  it  or  not,  it  is  not  for  us  to  judge ;  but  the 
fact  remains  that  their  doctrine  of  a  particular  yet  unconditional 
election  unto  salvation  subverts  the  entire  system  of  Gospel  truth 
and  deprives  every  doctrinal  member  of  that  system  of  its  saving 
power  and  comfort.  Whilst  the  Lutheran  Church  in  entire  con- 
formity with  Scripture  teaches  but  one  decree  unto  salvation  the 
Missourians  teach,  as  coordinate  to  it,  a  second  and  one  whereby 
the  first  is  logically  set  aside  and  practically  emptied  of  its  gra- 
cious content.  Professing  to  believe  with  us  that  God  by  His 
mercy  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  they  at  the  same  time 
contend  for  the  doctrine  that  God  has  decreed  to  save  only  a  few 
by  giving  to  them  —  for  reasons  no  man  can  know — the  faith 
adequate  to  that  end.  Never  were  two  articles  of  belief  more 
glaringly  contradictory  offered  for  acceptance  to  the  mind  of 
man;  and,  as  this  last,  never  was  doctrine  so  utterly  destructive 
of  every  well-grounded  hope  of  salvation. 

The  grave  charge  of  heresy  must  stand  against  the  synod  of 
Missouri  until  it  retracts.  A  mere  correction  of  phrases  cannot 
acquit  that  body;  nor  can  it  satisfy  an  offended  church  by  any 
profession  of  belief  in  the  universality  of  divine  grace,  however 
loud  and  unctious  it  may  be  in  giving  expression  to  it. 

Its  official  utterances  on  the  doctrine  of  predestination  as 
ultimately  set  forth  in  the  thirteen  theses  of  1881,*  when  con- 
sidered apart  from  their  history,  might  be  allowed  to  pass;  but 
taken  in  connection  with  the  controversy  that  has  called  them 
forth  they  have  settled  nothing,  except  that  the  Missouri  Sjmod 
as  a  body  has  adopted  the  position  of  its  leading  men  and  made 

*See  Minutes  of  the  Delegate  Synod  of  that  year. 

(iii) 


iv  hitroduction . 

itself  responsible  for  what  they  have  written.  The  theses  them- 
selves fail  to  cover  the  all  important  point  in  dispute.  When,  for 
example,  in  thesis  ten  they  declare  that  the  faith  foreseen  by 
God  in  the  elect  is  not  the  cause  which  moved  Him  to  predesti- 
nate them  unto  salvation,  they  simply  set  up  a  man  of  straw,  be 
it  to  knock  him  down  or,  which  is  more  likely,  to  have  the  im- 
pression go  abroad  that  their  opponents  had  in  all  sincerity  set 
up  a  figure  of  that  description.  But,  what  is  more  and  worse: 
by  the  terms  of  its  preamble  to  its  declaration  of  faith  the  synod 
demands  the  latter  to  be  subscribed  to  as  the  doctrine  set  forth 
in  its  publications  up  to  that  time,  to  wit,  the  Ltdheraner ,  the 
Lehre  7oid  Wehre,  and  the  Minutes  of  its  several  districts,  not- 
ably that  of  the  Western  District. 

In  these  publications  the  leaders  and  spokesmen  of  the  body 
arraigned  postulate  a  double  grace  in  God :  the  one  universal, 
being  for  all  men  alike;  the  other  particular,  specifically  potent, 
and  mysteriously  intended  for  the  elect  few  and  bestowed  on 
them  alone.  Strangely  enough,  the  former  alone  never  saves; 
whilst  the  latter,  when  concurrent  to  the  first,  shall  and  must 
save  every  man  to  whom  for  some  reason  unknown  to  us  it  is  ex- 
tended. By  some  eternal  purpose  and  decree  of  God  and  with- 
out any  regard  on  His  part  to  anything  whatsoever  in  man — the 
God-given  faith  included  —  this  grace  is  extant  for  only  the  few 
God  has  ordained  to  salvation.  Such,  according  to  our  Missouri 
opponents,  is  the  grace  of  election. 

When  in  1881*  Dr.  Walther  formulated  anew  the  contro- 
verted points,  the  first  proposition  he  declared  himself  ready  to 
affirm  and  defend  was,  "that  the  faith  foreseen  by  God  flows 
from  election;"  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  persevering  faith 
without  which  no  sinner  can  be  saved  has  its  source  in  election. 
This  proposition  he  set  up  over  against  the  other,  that  election 
flows  from  the  foreseen  faith  —  an  antithesis  of  his  own  inven- 
tion; for  what  was  really  contended  for  —  and  is  to-day  —  is  the 
plain  Bible  truth  that  grace  universal  is  for  every  man  wholly 
and  solely  the  source  of  the  faith  that  can  save  him  —  a  fact  and 
truth  our  opponents  have  completely  ignored!  From  the  posi- 
tion thus  assumed  by  the  leader  his  followers  have  never  receded; 
and  to  defend  the  pernicious  doctrine  then  and  there  enunciated 
they  stand  in  arms  against  us  to  this  very  day. 

By  the  common  consensus  of  Scripture  teaching  and  of  the 
*  See  Lehre  u.  Wehre,  Feb.  '81,  p.  54. 


Introduction.  v 

"belief  of  all  parties  concerned  as  well  as  by  the  very  word  em- 
ployed to  designate  it,  the  grace  of  election  is  particular;  and  this 
limited  grace  Missouri  declares  to  be  the  one  source  of  effectually 
savi7ig  faith.  Aware  of  what  such  a  doctrine  implies,  they 
ask  men  to  forego  the  exercise  of  their  prerogative  to  think  and 
instead  to  adore  the  mystery  divine  they  pretend  to  have  dis- 
covered. Surely,  poor  mortals  find  m5^steries  enough  in  God's 
providential  and  gracious  dealings  with  men  to  impress  them 
with  a  due  sense  of  His  majesty;  and  to  make  souls  stumble  at 
mysteries  which  have  no  existence  anywhere  except  in  some 
people's  imagination  is  a  sin  they  will  find  it  hard  to  account  for. 
To  thinking  men,  led  by  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God,  the 
Missouri  doctrine  of  an  iinconditional  election  of  a  limited  num- 
ber of  sinners  unto  conversion  and  persevering  faith  vitiates  the 
whole  plan  of  salvation.  Unless  a  poor  sinner  knows  himself  to 
be  one  of  God's  elect  —  a  matter  he  can  have  no  certain  and  un- 
mistakable knowledge  of — his  soul  must  be  tossed  with  doubts 
and  fears  all  his  lifetime.  Neither  the  mercy  of  God,  nor  the 
merits  of  Christ,  nor  the  witnessing  of  the  Spirit  are  able  to  give 
him  rest;  for — according  to  the  Missourians — these  do  not  suf- 
fice to  save  any  man  unless  the  mysterious  grace  of  election  be 
added  to  them;  that  is  to  say,  unless  God  have  in  His  eternal 
council  irrevocably  resolved  that  the  man  shall  and  must  be  saved ! 


Though  a  sort  of  truce  seems  to  be  observed  at  present  by 
the  parties  to  it,  the  controversy  is  not  come  to  an  end.  It  has 
been  carried  on  for  the  most  part  by  means  of  the  German  lan- 
guage ;  and  whilst  it  has  no  doubt  corrupted  the  faith  of  some 
and  sorely  afflicted  the  hearts  of  all  who  love  the  truth  of  God 
and  desire  His  Church  to  prosper  in  peace,  yet  has  the  good  Lord 
overruled  the  evil  for  good  to  thousands ;  for  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  the  battle  has  been  the  occasion  of  bringing  to  light  mau}^ 
treasures  of  precious  truth  that  might  otherwise  have  remained 
hidden  from  the  eyes  of  many  who  now  rejoice  in  them.  Bear- 
ing these  facts  in  mind.  President  E.  ly.  S.  Tressel  has  rendered 
an  invaluable  service  to  the  Church  by  publishing  this  volume, 
and  thus  making  some  of  the  choicest  finds  accessible  to  the 
English  reading  public. 

The  volume  thus  introduced  presents  three  lengthy  treatises 
•on  the  subject  of  predestination.     The  first,  by  Dr.  F.  W.  Stell- 


vi  Intro  dtiction . 

horn  and  translated  by  Rev.  R.  C.  H.  lyenski,  is  a  Contribution 
to  the  History  and  the  proper  Estimate  of  the  recent  controversy 
on  the  doctrine  of  Predestination.  The  Contribution  covers  three 
parts:  the  first,  a  dogmatic  historical  introduction  to  the  subject; 
the  second,  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  the  old  Lutheran  theo- 
logians ;  and  the  third,  the  doctrine  of  predestination  in  the  Mis- 
souri Synod. 

The  second  treatise,  Intuitu  Fidei,  is  by  Dr.  F.  A.  Schmidt, 
and  is  translated  by  the  brethren  R.  C.  H.  Lenski  and  C.  B.  Ghodes. 
In  this  the  Rev.  Doctor  propounds  and  answers  the  three  ques- 
tions: first.  What  was  the  substantial  content  of  the  doctrine, 
that  God  made  choice  of  the  elect  in  foresight  of  faith,  as  taught 
by  the  fathers  and  teachers  of  the  IvUtheran  Church?  secondly. 
Did  our  fathers  and  teachers  depart  from  the  Confessions  by 
teaching  an  election  in  foresight  of  faith?  and  thirdly.  Is  the 
doctrine  of  election  in  foresight  of  faith  taught  by  the  Lutheran 
Confession? 

The  third  and  last  treatise  is  A  Testimony  Against  the 
False  Doctrine  of  Predestination  Recently  Introduced  by  the 
Missouri  Synod,  and  an  Appendix  —  by  H.  A.  Allwardt  —  on 
the  history  of  the  controversy  in  that  body.  The  first  part  of 
this  paper  contains  a  series  of  theses  prepared  by  the  brethren 
H.  A.  Allwardt  and  Prof.  H.  Ernst,  followed  by  a  discussion  of 
the  same  by  the  authors  and  ministers  who  had  felt  themselves 
constrained  to  withdraw  from  the  Missouri  Synod  on  account  of 
the  grave  errors  that  body  had  set  out  to  promulgate.  These 
brethren  subsequently  organized  what  was  known  as  the  North- 
western District  of  our  Synod,  and  now  as  the  Districts  respec- 
tively of  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota.  The  translation  is  by  the 
brethren  R.  C.  H.  Lenski  and  W.  E.  Tressel. 

The  subject  matter  discussed  in  these  several  treatises  is  too 
vast  and  varied  for  even  a  synoptic  review  in  these  pages.  Suf- 
fice it  to  say  that  the  erudition,  assiduity  and  conscientiousness  of 
the  authors,  and  of  the  translators  as  well,  are  the  best  guarantee 
any  one  can  ask  for  that  the  book  herewith  recommended  is  a 
treasury  of  profound  thought,  nice  reasoning  and  of  rich  infor- 
mation. May  it  find  its  way  into  the  hands  of  many  readers  and 
prove  itself  of  lasting  good  to  them  and  through  them  to  the 
Church  at  large. 

C.    H.    L.    SCHUETTE. 

Columbus,  O.,  October  28,  A.  D.  iSpy. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

^^  t^^  t^^ 

THE  PRESENT  CONTROVERSY  ON  PREDESTINATION. 

PAGE 

Dogrnatico  Historical  Introduction 3 

A  )     Before  the  Formula  of  Concord 3 

B )     After  the  Formula  of  Concord 24 

The  Formula  oj  Concord  and  the  Old  Lutheran  Dogmaticians 39 

The  Doctrine  of  Predestinatioji  in  the  Missouri  Synod 53 

A )  Before  the  Year  1877 53 

B)  The  Synodical  Report  of  the  Western  District  for  the  Year  1877.  69 

C)  The  Synodical  Report  of  the  Western  District  for  the  Year  1879.  88 

D)  "  Altes  und  Neues"  and  "  Lehre  und  Wehre  "  before  the  General 

Pastoral  Conference  at  Chicago  in  the  Autumn  of  1880  ....  106 

E)  The  General  Pastoral  Conference  in  the  Autumn  of  1880 122 

F)  After  the  Pastoral  Conference  in  the  Autumn  of  1880 140 

G )  Comparative  Summary 

1.  What  is  predestination  ? 

a )  Old  Missouri   165 

b )  Modern  Missouri 165 

c)  The  Calvinists 166 

d )  The  Old  Lutheran  dogmaticians 166 

2.  What  has  God  regarded  in  election  ? .  . 

a)  Old  Missouri 166 

b )  Modern   Missouri 167 

c  )     The  Calvinists 167 

d )     The  Lutheran  Church 167 

3.  What  is  the  relation  especially  of  faith  to  election?  .... 

a)  Old  Missouri 168 

b)  Modern  Missouri.. 168 

c )  The  Calvanists 169 

d )  The  Lutheran  Church 169 

4.  In  what  sense  does  the  Formula  of  Concord  speak  of 

election  ? 

a  )     Old  Missouri 169 

b )     Modern  Missouri 169 

c  )     The  Lutheran  Church 169 

5.  Is  man's  conversion  and  salvation  in  every  sense  inde- 

pendent of  his  conduct  ? 

a)  Old  Missouri ^ 170 

b )  Modern  Missouri 170 

c)  The  Calvinists   170 

d )  The  Lutheran  Church 170 

(vii) 


viii  Table  of  Contents. 

G)     Comparative  Summar}-  —  Concluded.  page 

6.  May  we  speak  of  man's  decision  or  "  self-determination  " 

in  conversion  ? 

a)     Old  Missouri 171 

b  )     Modern  Missouri 171 

c )  The  Calvanists 171 

d )  The  Lutheran  Church     171 

7.  What  is  the  difference  between  the  Lutheran  and  Re- 

doctrine  of  election  ? 

a )  Old   Missouri 172 

b )  Modern  Missouri 173 

c )  Lutheran  Theologians 173 

d)  Schueckenburger 174 

8.  How   must   the  doctrine   of   the   dogmaticians   of   the 

seventeenth  century  be  regarded? 

a )  Old  Missouri 175 

b )  Modern  Missouri 175 

c )  Old  Dogmaticians 175 

9.  How  is  the  doctrine  of  Modern  Missouri  to  be  regarded  ? 

a)  Modern  Missourians 176 

b )  Every  impartial  man 176 

H)     Appendix:     An  Ally  of  Modern  INlissouri  in  Germany 177 

The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Ohio  Synod  185 

Theologians  of  Seventeenth  Centur}-.  .    .    185 

Colloquium  in  Columbus,  1879 186 

Columbus  Magazine 187 

Meeting  of  Joint  Synod  1881 188 

"INTUITU  FIDEL" 

Part  1 191 

What  were  the  contents  or  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  taught  by  our 

Lutheran  Church  Fathers,  that  God  elected  in  view  of  faith  ?  193 

Introductory  Remarks 193 

1.  Over  against  Romanism 193 

2.  Sola  Fide,  Intuitu  Fidei 193 

3.  Samuel   Huber 195 

4.  Correct  Understanding  of  Testimonies 197 

a)  Calvinists 197 

b )  Huber 197 

c )  Lutherans  .   198 

5.  Missouri's  New  Discovery 198 

6.  Missouri  Holds  Fast  the  Doctrine  of  our  Old  Teachers 

and  also  Rejects  it 199 

7.  Meeting  of  Synodical  Conference  in  Chicago ...      200 

8.  Quotations  from  Orthodox  Publications  and  Teachers. .  200 
A )     Authors  oj  the  Formula  of  Concord • 202 

David  Chytrseus 202 

Jacob  Andreae 206 

Christopher  Koerner 211 


Table  of  Contents.  ix 

A)  Authors  of  the  Fortntila  of  Concord — Concluded.  page 

Martin  Chemnitz 211 

Selnecker 228 

B)  Original  Subscribers  and  Defenders  of  the  Formula  of  Concord .  237 

Ae^.  Hunnius 237 

The  Wittenberg  Faculty 250 

The  Wuertteniburg  Theologians 265 

John  Wigand 276 

Matthew  Vogel 278 

G.  Mylius 278 

Stephen  Gerlach 282 

Daniel  Arcularius   •  •  •  288 

John  George  Sigwart 290 

Luke  Backmeister  and  Jacob  Color  (And  Chytraeus) 291 

David  Lobech 295 

John  Wickelmann 298 

Adam  Francisci 304 

Polj'carp  Leyser 310 

Solomon  Gesner   .  .• 317 

Wolfgang  Mamphrasius 327 

John  Papptis 328 

Andrew  Schaafmann 329 

Philip  Nicolai  . 331 

John  Haberniann 336 

Matthias  HafenrefFer 338 

Luke  Osiander 342 

John  Coler 345 

Matthew  Vogel 350 

Concluding  Remarks 368 

C)  The  Immediate  Pupils  of  the  Subscribers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

Introduction 381 

Leonhard  Hutter 384 

Frederick  Balduin 390 

John  Weber 396 

David  Runge   ....  398 

George   Stampel   403 

Joachim  Zehner 403 

Esaias  Silberschlag 404 

Wolfgang  Franz 408 

Balthasar   Mentzer 409 

Peter  Piscator 420 

John  Schroeder ■  ■  •  •  422 

Luke  Osiander,  Jr 425 

Albert  Cirauer 428 

John  Foerster 432 

John  Gerhard 434 

Justus  Feuerborn 437 

Nicolas  Hunnius 441 


X  Table  of  Contents. 

PAGB 

C)   The  Immediate  Pupits  of  the  Siibsbribers  of  tlie  F.  C.  —  Concluded. 

Conrad   Dietrich 445 

Closing  Remarks 447 

Part  II 449 

I.  Did  uiir  Fathers  depart  from  the  Confession  by  teaching  that  the 

election  of  certain  persons  took  place  in  view  of  faith  f . . . .  449 

II.  Does  Missouri  claim  that  our  Fathers  departed  from  the  Confes- 

sion with  their  doctrine  of  "  election  in  view  of  faith  " .  . . .  455 

Northern  District  and  Prof.  Fritschel 461 

Professor  Stoeckhardt  on  "  in  view  of  faith."     Philadelphia  Faculty. 

Lehre  und  Wehre             463 

III.  Did  Missouri  hold  to  her  present  doctrine  in  1872  ? 465 

"  Correct  understanding  "  of  a  Symbol 468 

IV.  Colloqu}'  in  Columbus,  1879  and  following  it ...    .  475 

Scripture,  Fathers,  Confession 47& 

Huberian  Controversy — a  test  of  the  sense  of  the  Eleventh  Article.  .  478 

Three  definitions  of  Election 478 

Church  of  Formula  of  Concord  knew  of  no  election  to  salvation  except 

of  believers 489 

Testimony  of  Wittenberg  men 481 

Rostock  men 485 

Tuebigen  and  Stuttgart  Schools,  Wuertemberg 486- 

V.  Scriptures,  ordination  to  salvation,  Acta  Huberiana,  Wuertem- 

berg men 489 

Specific  election 499 

Regard  to  faith  — Wittenberg  and  Wuertemberg  men 491 

Election  and  subsequent  will 494 

Grace  of  God  and  merits  of  Christ  the  complete  cause  of  election  .  . .  497 
Did  Rostock,  Wittenberg,  Tiiebingen  know  the  Lutheran  definition 

of  election? 509 

Part  III 505 

I.  Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  elected  men  to  salvation  in  viezv  of  faith 

found  in  our  Lutheran  Confessions? 505 

II.  Intuiti  Fidei  found  in  Book  of  Concord 509 

Augsburg  Confession  and  election 512 

Apology  and  election 514 

Difference  between  men  and  the  divine  verdict 517 

Order  of  decree  of  election  and  order  of  eternal  purpose   .    ...  520 

A  mystery  in  this  doctrine 521 

III.  The  Formula  of  Concord .  522 

Third  Article  of  Formula  of  Concord 525 

Sonship  and  inheritance  reflection  of  eternal  counsel  of  God 529 

IV.  Eleventh  Article 532 

Election  in  detail 537 

Trend  of  Eleventh  Article  against  Calvinistic  election 541 

Revealed  and  hidden  will  of  God .      543 

Definition  of  election 548 

Election  of  grace 552 


Table  of  Contents.  xi 

PAGE 

Formula  of  Concord  —  Order  of  Salvation 555 

VI.®     Missouri  guilt)-  of  misusing  the  Confession .          558 

Third  Thesis,  1879 562 

Formula  of  Concord  and  man's  conduct     565 

A    TESTIMONY   AGAINST    THE   FALSE    DOCTRINE   OF    MIS- 
SOURI  ON    PREDESTINATION. 

General  Introduction 571 

Introduction  of  doctrinal  discussion 573 

Thesis  I 577 

Wider  sense ......    580 

Confession  and  universal  counsel. 583 

Dr.  Luther's  preface  to  Romans 589 

Wider  sense  —  Gospel 591 

Thesis  II 593 

Missouri  —  Faith  in  election  —  Faith  in  justification 598 

Missouri  doctrine  of  election  and  the  biblical  doctrine  of  grace ...    .  600 

Thoughts  of  a  troubled  heart 603 

Chemnitz,  contingency 606 

If  you  are  to  be  saved 610 

Romans  II,  33,  etc 613 

Missouri  repeating  the  role  of  old  Israel 619 

Election  revealed  in  Scripture 621 

Certainty  of  salvation  conditional    625 

A  Missourian  on  the  witness  stand 628 

Luther  to  a  heart  troubled  about  predestination 632 

The  windy  thing  on  legs 635 

Dr.  Walther's  Postille 642 

Is  it  a  mystery  why  God  did  not  ordain  all  to  eternal  life  ? 645 

Thesis  III 648 

Election  revealed  in  the  Gospel     648 

Confession  on  "  election  revealed  in  the  Gospel  " 650 

Words  of  Confession  as  chief  point  of  controvery 652 

Missouri  and  the  thoughts  of  reason 659 

Is  redemption  only  for  the  elect  ? 670 

The  eight  points 677 

Missouri's  false  construction  of  the  eight  points  refuted 679 

Thesis  IV 685 

We  place  no  merit  in  man •  •  687 

Dr.  Walther's  proof  of  our  synergism 689 

Luther,  the  Confession,  the  Scriptures,  speak  as  we  do 691 

Baier  and  Huelseuiann  speak  as  we  do 695 

Quenstedt  speaks  likewise 696 

Faith  impels  God 702 


'  There  is  no  V  in  the  original. 


xii  Table  of  Co7itents. 

PAGE 

Thesis  V 706 

The  point  of  controversy 707 

Math.  22,  1—14 708 

Chemnitz  on  Math.  22 713 

Rom.  8,  28  —  30 714 

"Foreknow" 718 

Eph.  1,3  —  6 724 

2  Thess.  2,  13 730 

1  Pet.  1,1  and  2   736 

.Obedience 741 

Review  of  Scripture  passages 74b 

Analogy  of  faith 749 

What  elect  means 754 

Election  and  the  preacher 757 

APPENDIX. 

Which  of  the  two  parties  has  forsaken  their  former  standpoint? 760 

Brief  sketch  of  the  inception  of  the  controversy 789- 


The  Present  Controversy 
on  Predestination: 


A  CONTRIBUTION  TO  ITS  HISTORY  AND 
PROPER  ESTIMATE. 


By 
PROF.  F.  W.  STELLHORN,  D,  D., 

of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Seminary,  Columbus,  Ohio. 


Translateji  by 
REV.  R.  C  H.'lENSKI,  A.  M. 


THE  PRESENT  CONTROVERSY 


ON 


PREDESTINATION: 


A  CONTRIBUTION  TO  ITS  HISTORY  AND 
PROPER  ESTIMATE. 


I. 

DOQMATICO  ■  HISTORICAL  INTRODUCTION . 


A.    BEFORE   THE   FORMULA   OF  CONCORD. 

Sin  has  most  deeply  depraved  and  corrupted  man's  body  and 
soul  together  with  all  his  powers.  His  mind  and  will,  for  instance, 
rarely  choose  by  nature,  even  in  earthly  and  temporal  things,  the 
golden  middle-path;  man  is  ever  inclined  to  run  to  extremes,  to 
deviate  to  the  one  side  or  the  other.  This  proclivity  inheres  even  in 
the  best  of  Christians,  because  their  depraved  flesh  and  blood  still 
clings  to  them.  And  it  manifests  itself  in  the  most  varied  ways, 
in  things  bodily  as  well  as  in  things  spiritual,  in  the  social  and 
civil  as  well  as  in  the  religious  and  moral  life.  And  we  find  that 
even  the  religious  and  dogmatic  thinking  of  most  men  reveals 
this  inborn  onesidedness.  All,  even  the  worst  of  heresies  contain 
at  least  a  grain  of  truth,  and  have  arisen  in  this  very  way  that  some 
truths  were  neglected  or  set  aside,  while  others  were  in  a  onesided 
way  emphasized  and  developed  and  thus  perverted  and  distorted. 
We  accordingly  meet  this  onesidedeness  repeatedly  when  we  ex- 
amine the  History  of  Dogma  on  the  doctrine  of  Predestination 
and  subjects  connected  with  it. 

The  doctrine  of  predestination  held  by  any  teacher  or  de- 
nomination in  the  church  is  in  reality  their  final  answer  to  the 
question  as  to  the  relation  of  human  hberty  to  divine  grace, — one 
of  the  most  difficult,  and  at  the  same  time  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant questions  in  the  field  of  religion  and  dogmatics.  In  an- 
svv^ering  this  question  there  appeared  quite  early  the  onesidedness 
just  mentioned;  the  teachers  of  the  Greek  or  Oriental  Church  laid 
the  greatest  stress  on  human  liberty,  while  those  in  the  older  or 
Western  Church  placed  most  emphasis  on  divine  grace.  The 
former  onesided  view  found  its  consistent  outcome  in  Pelagian- 
ism,  the  other  in  an  absolute  predestination  and  in  an  irresistible 
grace. 

The  Greek  teachers  were  influenced  by  their  justifiable  and 
even  necessary  opposition  to  the  heathen,  and  especially  Stoic, 

(3) 


4  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

philosophy  with  its  doctrine  of  fate,  "which  rules  with  irresistible 
power  the  destiny  of  men,  and  reduces  moral  freedom  to  a  mini- 
mum"; they  were  influenced  likewise  by  their  opposition  to 
Gnosticism  with  its  doctrine  of  evil  created  in  man;  and  thus  they 
permitted  themselves  to  fall  into  the  opposite  extreme. 

John  of  Damascus,  the  well-known  representative  dogma- 
tician  of  the  Greek  Church  (died  about  7G0),  gives  expression  to 
this  view  in  the  following  words:  "Election  is  in  our  own  hands; 
the  perfecting  of  the  good,  however,  is  something  belonging  to 
the  co-operation  of  God  (ri,c,  rab  i^soh  ffu'^c/iysiag),  w^hich  is  active 
in  those  who  choose  the  good  with  an  honest  resolution.  .  .  . 
Moral  goodness  has  been  implanted  into  our  nature  by  God.  He 
is  the  source  and  cause  of  all  good,  and  without  His  co-operation 
and  help  {Tuvifiy^ia  xm  jSirrji'ista.)  all  willing  and  doing  of  the  good 
is  impossible  for  us.  Yet  it  is  left  to  us,  either  to  continue  in  moral 
goodness  and  to  follow  God,  who  calls  us  thereto,  or  to  forsake 
the  good,  i.  e.,  to  turn  to  the  evil  and  to  follow  the  devil,  who  draws 
us  thereto,  although  without  coercion."  (Thomasius,  "Dogmen- 
geschichte,"  I.,  492.)  With  these  synergistic  principles  predesti- 
nation could,  of  course,  be  made  to  rest  only  on  the  divine  fore- 
knowledge of  man's  free  conduct  toward  that  which  is  good. 
John  of  Damascus  speaks  indeed  quite  correctly  about  an  an- 
tecedent will  of  God  desiring  the  salvation  of  all  men,  and  about 
a  subsequent  will  conferring  salvation  only  upon  a  few;  yet  he 
wrongly  rests  this  latter  will  on  the  divine  foresight  of  the  right, 
and  wholly  free,  conduct  of  man  toward  things  praiseworthy  and 
blameworthy. 

The  chief  representatives  of  the  older  Latin  Church  are  Am- 
brosius  of  Milan  (d.  397)  and  Augustine  of  Hippo  Regius  (d.  430). 
The  former  is  not  far  removed  from  the  view  of  the  Greeks,  al- 
though he  emphasizes  far  more  the  depth  of  inherited  depravity 
and  the  necessity  of  divine  grace,  which  must  precede  the  human 
will  and  prepare  and  enable  it  to  choose  the  good.  At  least,  he 
rests  predestination  on  the  divine  foreknowledge  of  the  good 
works  or  merits  of  the  individual  concerned:  quorum  merita 
prsescivit,  eorum  prsemia  prgedestinavit  (whosesoever  merits  He 
foresaw,  their  rewards  did  He  predestinate — referring  to  Rom.  8, 
29). — Before  the  Pelagian  controversy  began  even  Augustine 
stood  essentially  on  synergistic  ground.  According  to  his  own 
confession  in  the  Retractationes,  he  at  that  time  thought  that  to 
believe  and  to  will  were  in  man's  own  power,  and  that  God's  part 


Dogviatico-Historical  Introduction.  5 

was  to  bestow  upon  him  who  beHeved  and  willed  the  ability  to  do 
good,  by  His  Holy  Spirit,  through  whom  love  is  poured  out  in 
our  hearts  (nostrum  est  credere  et  velle,  illius  autem  dare  cre- 
dentibus  et  volentibus  facultatem  bene  operandi  per  Spiritum 
Sanctum,  per  quern  charitas  diffunditur  in  cordibus  nostris).  This 
was  the  synergistic  extreme  to  which  Augustine  permitted  himself 
to  be  driven  by  his  opposition  to  the  dualistic  and  fatalistic  INIani- 
cheism,  whose  satanic  depths  he  had  learned  to  understand  in  a 
painful  experience  of  nine  years.  His  later  thorough  understand- 
ing of  the  inherited  depravity  of  human  nature,  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Scriptures,  of  the  process  of  his  own  conversion,  and  espe- 
cially the  warning  example  of  Pelagianism,  this  recklessly  consist- 
ent svnergism;  turned  him  back  from  this  extreme.  Over  against 
Pelagius  and  his  adherents  with  their  denial  of  original  sin  and 
of  the  absolute  necessity  of  divine  grace,  Augustine  victoriously 
upheld  both,  and  his  work  in  this  regard  will  ever  be  appreciated 
b}-  the  orthodox  church.  Unfortunately,  however,  he  too  was  car- 
ried into  an  extreme,  namely  into  an  absolute  predestination  and 
an  irresistible  grace.  Predestination  he  takes  to  be  the  eternal  act 
of  God,  by  which,  from  among  the  mass  of  men  lost  in  sin.  He  in- 
fallibly foreordained  those  whom  He  would  unto  conversion,  sanc- 
tification,  and  salvation,  whilst  He  left  the  rest  to  their  destruction. 
"For  the  elect,  and  only  for  them  did  Christ  die;  for  them  the 
saving  institution  of  the  Gospel  exists ;  to  them  the  efficacious  call 
comes  which  also  irresistibly  produces  its  results  in  them;  to 
them  is  given  the  donum"  (perseverantise,  the  gift  of  persever- 
ance) "which  they  cannot  lose  again.  The  rest  God  leaves  (re- 
linquit)  to  their  destruction.  And  this  is  an  act  not  of  injustice,  but 
of  justice,  for  in  this  they  receive  only  what  they  deserve  for  the 
sin  in  which  they  are  entangled:  pro  meritis  justissime  judican- 
tur;  qui  damnantur  non  habent  quod  reprehendant"  (according 
to  their  merits  they  are  most  justly  judged;  they  who  are  damned 
have  no  cause  for  complaint).  "And  there  is  also  no  especial 
decretum  divinum  reprobationis"  (divine  decree  of  reprobation), 
"inasmuch  as  the  final  cause  of  their  damnation  does  not  lie  in  this 
that  God  willed  their  destruction  and  caused  their  sin;  but  who- 
soever is  lost  perishes  because  he  belongs  to  the  race  which  has 
sinned  in  Adam.  Whoever  is  saved  has  salvation  purely  and 
solely  by  grace.  But  why,  when  all  are  equally  sinful  and  un- 
worthy, God  should  elect  the  one  and  leave  the  other,  this  Augus- 
tine explains  at  times  by  declaring:    'That  liberty  may  show  itself 


6  The  Pi-esoit  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

in  all  the  clearer  light,'  and  commonly  by  saying  that  man  must 
here  seal  his  lips,  and  bow  his  head  in  reverence  beneath  the  un- 
searchable counsel  of  God."  (Thomasius,  ibid.,  p.  541.) — Con- 
cerning the  operation  of  converting  and  saving  grace  Augustine 
has,  among  other  utterances,  the  following:  "When  God  wills  to 
save  no  will  of  man  resists.  It  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  no  will  of 
man  can  resist  the  will  of  God,  which  has  made  in  heaven  and 
earth  all  that  He  would,  so  that  He  should  not  do  what  He  wills; 
inasmuch  as  He  even  does  what  He  wills  with  the  will  of  man 
him.self.  .  .  .  And  yet  He  does  this  in  no  way  but  through  the  will 
of  man  himself,  as  beyond  doubt  He  has  the  most  omnipotent 
power  over  the  human  heart  to  incline  it  whither  He  pleases." 
(Deo  volenti  salvum  facere  nullum  hominum  resistit  arbitrium. 
Non  est  dubitandum,  voluntati  Dei,  qui  in  coelo  et  in  terra  omnia, 
quaecumque  voluit,  fecit,  humanas  voluntates  non  posse  resistere, 
quominus  faciat  ipse  quod  vult;  quondoquidem  de  ipsis  hominum 
voluntatibus,  quod  vult,  facit.  .  .  .  Qui  tamen  hoc  non  facit 
nisi  per  ipsorum  hominum  voluntates,  sine  dubio  habens  human- 
orum  cordium  quo  placeret  inclinandorum  omnipotentissimam 
potestatem.)  Luthardt  ("Die  Lehre  vom  freien  Willen,"  The 
Doctrine  of  Free  Will,  p.  36,  sq.)  summarizes  the  opinion  of  Au- 
gustine on  this  point  in  the  following  sentences:  "It  is  the  al- 
mighty God  who  turns  the  resisting  will  unto  faith,  operating 
therefore  with  the  same  unconditional  will  and  power  of  omnipo- 
tence, which  He  exerts  in  the  domain  of  nature,  also  in  the  domain 
of  moral  choice  (self-determination),  thus  lowering  it  into  a  mere 
form  of  His  own  operation.  God  utilizes  and  determines  also  the 
evil  will  in  the  domain  of  sinful  action  according  to  His  pleas- 
ure, so  that  here  also  He  is  the  actor.  Accordingly  God  turns  the 
human  will  as  He  wills,  agreeeably  to  His  mercy  or  to  His 
righteousness.  Why  He  works  in  the  one  in  this  way  and  in 
the  other  in  that,  saves  the  one,  permits  the  other  to  be  lost — who 
can  explain  this?  This  is  the  secret  will  of  God.  And  it  is  thus 
established,  Augustine  reiterates  in  his  work  De  corr.  et  gr., 
that  in  all  things  God's  will  is  to  be  acknowledged.  For  man  can 
have  no  other  will  than  God  wills  him  to  have;  and  whichever 
God's  will  wills  him  to  have,  that  man  must  have,  for  God's  will 
cannot  fail  of  its  result.  These  are,  if  not  the  words,  yet  the  thoughts 
which  Augustine  here  develops.  As  in  our  natural  life,  so  also  in 
the  spiritual,  all  gifts  are  to  be  referred  back  to  God's  will,  that  is 
to  His  omnipotent  will.    And  thus  also  perseverance  in  the  good 


Dogmatico-Historical  Introditction.  7 

is  a  pure  gift  of  God's  grace.  For  could  not  God  have  called  those 
who  fell  away,  out  of  the  world  before  they  fell?  If  He  did  not  call 
them  away,  if  He  permitted  them  to  fall,  it  was  only  because  He  did 
not  will  to  give  them  the  donum  perseverantise"  (the  gift  of  perse- 
verance), "with  which,  if  they  had  had  it,  they  could  not  have  fallen. 
Those  alone,  however,  to  whom  God  gives  this  gift  are  children  of 
God  in  His  eyes.  For  those  who  fall  away  have  in  full  truth  never 
been  children  of  God.  They  belong,  indeed,  to  the  vocati  (the 
called),  but  not  to  the  electi  (the  elect) ;  for  the  latter  cannot  be  lost. 
For  the  result  must  be  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God.  These 
alone  are  sons  of  God;  yet  also  all  these,  even  if  they  have  not  yet 
been  born  again;  yea,  even  if  they  have  not  yet  been  born  at  all. 
For  .only  God's  predetermining  will  is  decisive  here.  With  this 
will  God's  assisting  grace  and  its  operation  coincides  .  .  .  New 
Testament  grace,  as  the  saints  predestinated  to  the  kingdom  of 
God  receive  it,  includes  of  necessity"  (not  only  the  possibility  of 
perseverance,  but  also)  "its  actuality — non  solum  ut  sine  isto  dono 
perseverantes  esse  non  possint,  verum  etiam  est  per  hoc  donum 
nonnisi  perseverantes  sint"  (not  only  that  without  this  gift  they 
cannot  persevere,  but  also  that  through  this  gift  they  cannot  other- 
wise than  persevere). 

Evidently  it  was  nothing  but  self-deception  when  Augustine 
imagined  that  he  could  hold  fast,  together  with  these  propositions 
of  absolute  predestination,  the  freedom  of  the  will  and  the  liberty 
of  man,  and  when  he  even  declared  in  his  Retractationes :  "Both 
faith  and  the  production  of  good  works  is  our  own  by  reason  of 
the  liberty  of  our  will,and  both,  therefore,  have  been  imparted  to 
us  through  the  spirit  of  faith  and  love.  Both  are  of  God,  because 
He  prepares  our  will;  and  both  are  our  own,  because  we  will 
them."  It  is  only  playing  with  words  to  say  of  a  will  of  God,  oper- 
ating unavoidably  and  insuperably  (indeclinabiliter  et  insupera- 
biliter),  bringing  the  most  almighty  power  to  bear  in  an  irresistible 
manner,  that  this  will  does  not  coerce  the  will  of  man,  since  it 
works  not  without  but  in  him,  as  also  the  operations,  faith  and 
love,  are  in  the  strictest  sense  acts  of  man's  free  will.  This  is  true 
only  in  the  sense  that,  taken  strictly,  the  will  itself  can  never  be 
coerced,  but  only  man,  to  will  as  he  wills,  and  therefore  it  really 
says  nothing.  It  was  likewise  a  strange  self-deception  when  Au- 
gustine imagined  that  his  doctrine  agreed  with  the  Scriptures ;  and 
only  by  the  delusion  into  which  the  most  shrewd  and  approved  in- 
fluential theologian  may  fall,  when  once  he  has  fully  started  on  a 


8  The  Present  ConU'oversy  on  Predestination. 

onesided  line,  can  it  be  explained,  that  Augustine  did  not  scruple 
to  misinterpret  the  beautiful  passage  1  Tim.  2,  4 :  "Who  will  have 
all  men  to  be  saved  and  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,"  in 
numberless  ways:  sometimes  "all  men"  are  taken  as  all  those  of 
whom  God  wills  that  they  shall  come  to  grace,  hence  only  the 
elect.  Again,  they  are  taken  as  men  of  all  kinds  and  all  branches 
of  the  human  family;  again,  simply  as  many;  again,  the  passage  is 
thought  to  say  that  no  man  can  be  saved  except  God  will  it;  again, 
that  it  can  be  said  of  God,  that  He  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved, 
because  He  induces  us  to  wish  this ! 

It  is  to  be  ascribed,  at  least  in  great  part,  to  this  unevangelical 
onesidedness  and  harshness  of  Augustine's  doctrine  that  his  con- 
tention against  Pelagianism  did  not  receive  undivided  approval 
in  the  church,  especially  in  that  of  the  West.  Augustine  was  un- 
doubtedly right  over  against  Pelagius;  for  the  latter  carried  the 
onesided  view  of  the  Greek  Church,  with  which  he  had  become 
conversant  through  its  writings  or  through  a  visit  to  the  East,  con- 
sistently to  its  last  extreme,  making  predestination  depend  on  the 
divine  foreknowledge  of  man's  free  choice  (self-determination), 
which  really  needs  no  grace;  and  this  good  work  of  Avigustine 
the  church  acknowledged.  His  own  onesidedness,  however, 
could  not  be  adopted.  Yet  to  ofTset  this  the  whole  truth  was  un- 
fortunately not  taken.  The  middle-path  between  the  extremes  of 
Pelagius  and  Augustine  was  not  really  chosen,  although  this  was 
intended ;  repelled  by  the  predestinarianism  of  the  latter,  a  course 
too  near  Pelagianism  was  entered.  This  is  the  Semi-Pelagianism 
of  John  Cassianus,  a  pupil  and  friend  of  the  Greek  Chrysostom 
and  of  his  likeminded  adherents,  the  Massilians.  "The  relation 
of  grace  to  free  will  Cassianus  sets  forth  as  a  constant  being-side- 
by-side  and  working  together  of  both,  in  which  he  makes  the  good 
proceed  at  one  time  from  grace,  at  another  from  human  choice 
(self-determination).  Which  of  the  two  is  the  rule  cannot  be  de- 
cided a  priori.  Experience  shows,  on  the  one  hand,  that  God  an- 
ticipates man  in  that  He  calls  him,  yea,  at  times  draws  some 
without  or  against  their  will  unto  salvation,"  e.  g.,  the  publican 
Matthew,  the  Apostle  Paul;  on  the  other  hand,  that  man  also 
without  being  moved  or  solicited  from  without,  wholly  from  with- 
in, disposes  himself  for  the  good  and  makes  the  beginning  (initium 
fidei  et  boni  operis),  e.  g.,  Zacchgeus,  or  the  malefactor  on  the 
cross"  (?).  (Thomasius,  ibid.,  p.  561.)  Here  predestination  was 
made  to  rest  entirely  on  the  divine  foreknowledge  of  the  moral 


Dogmatico-Historical  Introduction.  9 

condition  of  man.  This  controversy  between  Pelagianism  and 
Augustinianism,  waged  especially  in  France,  was  finally  closed 
for  several  centuries  at  the  Council  of  Orange  in  the  year  529. 
Pelagianism  and  Semi-Pelagianism  were  rejected  with  all  clear 
ness  and  decision,  likewise  the  most  objectionable  form  of  pre- 
destinarianism,  predestination  unto  evil,  which,  to  be  sure,  neither 
Augustine  nor,  as  far  as  we  know,  any  adherent  of  his  doctrine 
has  ever  maintained.  Irresistible  grace,  however,  and  the  par- 
ticularism of  predestination  were  passed  over  in  silence. 

How  the  Western  Church,  without  being  conscious  of  the 
fact,  gradually  left  the  standpoint  of  Augustine,  who  was  honored 
as  the  highest  authority,  we  see  in  Gregory  the  Great  (d.  604). 
God  has  elected  those  from  eternity  of  whom  He  foresaw  that 
they  would  accept  His  grace  and  persevere  therein  unto  the  end. 
Suos  et  electos  nominat,  quia  cernit,  quod  in  fide  et  bono  opere 
persistant  (He  calls  them  His  own  and  His  elect,  because  He 
sees  that  they  persevere  in  faith  and  good  work).  This  juxtaposi- 
tion of  faith  and  good  work  already  reveals  the  Semi-Pelagian 
position  of  Gregory,  and  indeed  it  forms  the  transition  to  the 
Semi-Pelagianism  of  the  Romish  Church  later  on.  This  position 
of  Gregory  is  shown  even  more  fully  by  his  declarations  on  the 
relation  between  divine  grace  and  human  action.  "Man,  sick 
with  sin,  in  need  of  a  physician,  must  be  willing  to  be  helped,  if 
he  is  to  be  healed.  Grace  alone  heals  him  of  his  disease ;  but  the 
fact  that  he  receives  this  grace  willingly  is  his  merit.  The  good 
that  we  do  is  the  result  of  a  co-operation  between  God  and  our- 
selves. .  .  .  Grace  is  anticipating  and  liberating,  but  the  subse- 
quens  liberum  arbilrrium"  (the  subsequent  free  will)  "consents 
(consentit),  and  this  establishes  the  meritum  liberi  arbitrii"  (merit 
of  free  will).  Foreordination  is  determined  according  to  the 
conduct  of  free  will  tow^ard  prevenient  and  liberating  grace;  it 
rests  on  the  foreknowledge  of  this  conduct."  (Luthardt,  ibid.,  p. 
53.)  In  the  first  half  of  the  9th  century,  however,  the  monk  Gott- 
schalk,  detained  against  his  will  in  a  monastery,  and  then  seek- 
ing comfort  in  the  study  of  Augustine's  writings,  revived  this 
father's  doctrine  of  predestination  in  its  harshest  form;  indeed, 
he  developed  it  to  a  double  foreordination,  that  of  the  elect  unto 
life  and  that  of  the  reprobate  unto  death,  although  Augustine  as 
a  rule  had  spoken  only  of  a  committal  (relinquishing)  of  the  evil 
to  their  deserved  punishment.  The  cruel  treatment  of  Gottschalk 
by  his  ecclesiastical  superiors  made  many  sympathize  with  him, 


10  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

and  his  doctrine,  too,  found  much  approval;  yet  workrig-hteous- 
ness,  which  became  ever  more  influential  both  theoretically  and 
practically,  and  from  which  Augustine  also  had  not  been  free, 
turned  attention  more  and  more  away  from  the  doctrine  of  Gott- 
schalk.  The  most  powerful  of  the  scholastics,  Thomas  Aquinas, 
however,  still  endeavored  to  harmonize  the  absolute  predestin- 
arianism  of  Augustine  with  Semi-Pelagian  principles.  Accord- 
ing to  him,  it  is  divine  grace  which  enables  man  to  perform  good 
and  meritorious  works.  This  grace,  however,  is  bestowed  ac- 
cording to  an  absolute  predestination  upon  the  one  and  not  upon 
the  other.  His  antipode,  Duns  Scotus,  made  predestination  con- 
ditional on  the  divine  foreknowledge  of  man's  free  conduct.  Ac- 
cording to  him  grace  does  not,  as  is  taught  by  Thomas,  neces- 
sarily come  first,  but  man  may,  and  should,  make  himself  fit 
to  receive  this  grace,  by  a  proper  use  of  his  free  will.  And  it  is 
Duns  Scotus,  and  not  Thomas,  who  has  left  his  stamp  upon  the 
Romish  Church,  the  stamp  of  Semi-Pelagianism.  It  was  in  vain 
that  Thomas  of  Bradwardina,  succeeding  his  renowned  name- 
sake in  his  ecclesiastical  order  and  in  his  opinions  (d.  1349  as  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury),  endeavored  to  maintain  the  cause  of 
free  and  unconditional  divine  grace  over  against  the  error  of 
Pelagianism.  The  absolute  predestination  and  the  irresistibility 
of  the  saving  will  of  God,  which  he  too  thought  necessary  for  this 
purpose,  found  a  refuge  more  and  more  only  among  the  so-called 
heretics.  Among  these  were  Wiclif  and  Hus.  The  former  writes 
in  his  Dialogus:  "And  thus  it  appears  to  me  probable  that  God 
moves  each  single  active  creature  with  necessity  to  its  every  ac- 
tivity. And  thus  some  are  predestined,  i.  e.  appointed  after  their 
labor  unto  glory;  others  foreknown,  i.  e.  appointed  after  a  miser- 
able life  to  perpetual  punishment.  (Et  sic  videatur  mihi  probabile, 
quod  Deus  necessitat  creaturas  singulas  activas  ad  quemlibet 
actum  suum.  Et  sic  sunt  aliqui  praedestinati,  hoc  est  post 
laborem  ordinati  ad  gloriam;  alii  prgesciti,  hoc  est  post  vitam 
miseram  ad  poenam  perpetuam  ordinati.)  Hus  is  dependent  here, 
as  well  as  in  general,  not  only  as  far  as  the  matter  itself,  but  also 
as  far  as  the  manner  of  expression  is  concerned,  upon  Wiclif. 
And  thus  it  came  to  pass  that  predestinarianism  was  regarded 
ever  more  and  more  as  the  mark  and  production  of  heresy,  and 
the  opposite  extreme  of  Semi-Pelagianism  as  the  true  doctrine 
of  the  Christian  Church. 

It  was  no  wonder  that  Luther  and  those  whom  God  placed 


Dogmatico-Historical  Introduction.  11 

at  his  side  and  under  his  leadership  in  the  blessed  work  of  the 
Reformation,  at  first  assumed  more  or  less  the  standpoint  of  Au- 
gustine in  their  absolutely  necessary  opposition  to  the  prevailing 
Semi-Pelagianism.  In  Luther  this  was  all  the  less  surprising,  as 
he  was  an  Augustinian  monk,  and  seems  to  have  studied  the 
writings  of  Augustine  in  the  latter  years  of  his  monastic  life  with 
special  zeal.  The  work  of  Luther  which  here  demands  chief  at- 
tention is  his  De  servo  arbitrio,  of  the  year  1525.  What  judgment 
the  Lutheran  Church,  by  its  most  important  teachers,  has  passed 
on  this  much  discussed  book,  we  have  endeavored  to  set  forth  in 
Vol.  in.  of  the  "Columbus  Theological  Magazine,"  pp.  213-230, 
in  an  article  entitled:  "The  Voice  of  the  Lutheran  Church  Con- 
cerning Luther's  Book  'De  Servo  Arbitrio.'"  We  give  here 
only  the  main  points  of  this  more  extended  discussion.  Accord- 
ing- to  Walch  in  his  edition  of  Luther's  works.  Vol.  XVIII.,  p. 
121,  sqq.,  Lutheran  theologians,  as  to  their  opinion  on  this  work 
of  Luther,  can  be  divided  into  three  classes.  The  first  class  thinks 
that  "Luther  has  expressed  himself  on  predestination  in  this 
book  in  such  a  manner  that  he  in  fact  agrees  with  Calvin  and  his 
adherents."  To  this  class  belong  the  theological  members  of  the 
strictly  Lutheran  University  of  Rostock  in  the  year  1595,  15  years 
after  the  first  pubHcation  of  the  Book  of  Concord.  This  its  Opin- 
ion the  faculty  expresses  in  a  judgment  given  on  Ruber's  doctrine 
of  predestination,  which  will  be  referred  to  later;  and  the  writer  of 
this  Opinion  is  one  of  the  chief  authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
David  Chytraeus,  most  certainly  an  unquestionably  Lutheran 
theologian.  This  judgment  is  addressed  to  the  theological  faculty 
of  Wittenberg.  After  quoting  a  few  of  the  strongest  expressions 
of  Luther's  work,  it  continues:  "These  and  many  similar  exceed- 
ingly terrible  utterances,  which  at  that  time  were  taught  in  your 
school  as  divine  revelations,  are  now  nowhere  retained  except  in 
the  schools  of  the  Calvinists.  Philippus  (Melanchthon)  our  com- 
mon teacher,  has  gradually  softened  and  removed  them  .... 
and  this  already  while  Luther  was  living."  (Haec  et  multa  his 
similia,  horridiora,  quae  tunc  in  vestra  cathedra  velut  oracula 
docebantur,  nunc  nusquam  nisi  in  Calvinianorum  scholis  retinen- 
tur,  Philippus,  communis  praeceptor  noster,  paullatim  leniit  et 
sustulit  .  .  .  idque  vivo  adhuc  Luthero.)  To  this  class  belongs 
also  Dr.  F.  A.  Philippi  (d.  1882  as  professor  at  Rostock),  in  our 
opinion  the  greatest  Lutheran  dogmatician  since  Hollaz.  In  his 
work,  "Kirchliche  Glaubenslehre,"  Vol.  4,  1,  2d  ed.,  p.  37,  we 


12  The  Presejit   Cojitroversy  on  Predestination. 

read:     "Erasmus  attacked  in  his  work,  De  Libero  Arbitrio,  the 
vital  principle  of  the  Reformation,  and  endeavored  to  bring  the 
church  to  reject  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Reformation  and 
to  return  to  the  Romish  Semi-Pelagianism;    and  moreover  he 
treated  absolute  predestination  as  the  necessary  result  of  the  Au- 
gustinian  doctrine  of  sin  and  grace,  and  used  it  as  a  bugbear. 
Thereupon  Luther,  to  assure  the  safety  of  the  evangelical  basis  of 
salvation,  made  a  truly  gigantic  assault  on  this  theological  dwarf 
in  his  work,  De  Servo  Arbitrio,  and  did  not  hesitate  to  draw  also 
the  inferences  from  his  position,  but  accepted,  with  an  over-bold 
defiance  born  of  faith,  on  the  one  hand,  the  theological  deduc- 
tion of  an  unconditional  election,  from  the  premise  of  the  en- 
slaved will,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  speculative  deduction 
of  the  bondage  of  the  will,  from  the  premise  of  an  unconditional 
•omnipotence  and  an  eternal  prescience.     Yet  Luther  merely  ac- 
cepted the  position  offered  him  by  his  opponent,  and  permitted 
himself  for  the  moment  to  be  carried  so  far  beyond  his  goal  only 
by  his  opposition.    In  reality  he  sought  rather  to  establish  a  basis 
than  to  draw  conclusions.    And  then  in  his  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion, and  the  central  position  which  this  assumed  with  him,  as  well 
as  in  his  doctrine  of  the  means  of  grace,  there  was  shown,  already 
at  that  time  and  still  more  later  on,  an  irreconcilable  opposition 
against  this  absolute  predestination,  whereby  it  was  bound  to  be 
completely  superseded.     And  therefore,  Luther  not  only  never 
after  accepted  this  doctrine,  but  taught  in  fact  the  very  opposite 
of   it   in    his   unequivocal   proclamation    of   the    universality    of 
divine  grace,  of  the  universal  application  of  Christ's  merits,  of 
the  universal  operation  of  the  means  of  grace;    and  he   even 
controverted    this    doctrine    and    took    back    his    earlier    utter- 
ances on  this  point  by  his  later  corrections."    A  similar  position 
is  taken  by  other  noteworthy  Lutheran  theologians  of  to-day. 
The  second  class  of  Lutheran  theologians  maintains  "that  Lu- 
ther used  expressions  in  his  work,  De  Servo  Arbitrio,  which  in 
themselves  are  not  to  be  approved,  and  appear  to  declare  an  abso- 
lute decreee  of  God  concerning  man's  salvation  and  his  condemna- 
tion; that  he  is  nevertheless  to  be  excused,"  inasmuch  as  at  that 
time  "the  light  of  evangelical  knowledge  had  not  yet  fully  dawned 
for  him,"  or  inasmuch  as  he  used  inconsiderate  and  imprudent  ex- 
pressions without  a  Calvinistic  meaning  on  his  part,  or  inasmuch 
as  he  treated  the  matter  "more  philosophically  than  theologic- 
allv,"  etc.    To  this  class  the  majority  of  our  older  theologians  be- 


Do gmatico- Historical  Introduction.  13- 

long,  e.  g.,  M.  Chemnitz,  John  Gerhard,  A.  Calov,  V.  E.  Loescher, 
etc.  Some  of  them  almost  agree  with  the  first  class,  namely  those 
who  assume  that  at  that  time  Luther  yet  lacked  "the  full  light  of 
evangelical  knowledge." 

The  third  class  is  a  very  small  one,  and  consists  of  those  Lu- 
theran theologians  who  claim  that  there  is  "nothing  erroneous, 
and  questionable  contained  in  these  expressions,  but  that  every- 
thing is  correctly  set  forth  in  them,  if  only  they  are  taken  in  Lu- 
ther's sense."  The  most  prominent  of  these  theologians  is, 
among  the  older,  Seb.  Schmidt,  among  the  later,  A.  G.  Rudelbach. 

Our  present  opinion  we  have  already  indicated  above. 
Formerly,  and  also  in  the  article  referred  to,  we  were  inclined 
rather  to  the  second  class.  However,  the  first  class  seems  to  be  in 
the  right,  as  their  explanation  seems  to  be  the  most  natural  and 
least  strained,  and  because  it  is  established  that  Luther  at  this 
time  had  not  yet  in  all  things  attained  his  later  clearness.  The  fol- 
lowing passages,  for  instance,  seems  to  us  to  demand  this  explana- 
tion: "The  will  of  God  is  efficacious  and  cannot  be  impeded,  as  it 
is  the  natural  power  of  God  (Voluntas  Dei  efficax  est,  quae  im- 
pediri  non  potest,  cum  sit  naturaHs  ipsa  potentia  Dei)." — "He  does 
everything  in  an  immutable  way,  and  His  will  can  neither  be  re- 
sisted, nor  changed,  nor  impeded  (Immutabiliter  omnia  facit  et 
voluntati  ejus  neque  resisti  neque  eam  mutari  aut  impediri 
posse)." — "It  is  God  for  whose  will  neither  cause  nor  reason  can  be- 
given.  For  not  because  He  should  will,  or  should  have  willed, 
thus,  is  that  right  which  He  wills,  but  on  the  contrary,  because  He 
Himself  willed  it,  therefore,  whatever  occurs  must  be  right 
(Deus  est  cujus  voluntatis  nulla  est  causa  nee  ratio.  Non 
enim  quia  sic  debet  vel  debuit  velle,  ideo  rectum  est  quod  vult, 
sed  contra,  quia  ipse  vult,  ideo  debet  rectum  esse  quod  fit)." — 
"It  is  therefore  also  especially  necessary  and  salutary  for  a  Chris- 
tian to  know  that  God  foresees  nothing  contingent,  but  that 
He  foresees  and  ordains  and  does  all  things  with  His  immutable 
and  eternal  and  infallible  will.  With  this  stroke  free  will  is  en- 
tirely crushed  and  annihilated  (Est  itaque  et  hoc  inprimis  neces- 
sarium  et  salutare  Christiano  nosse,  quod  Deus  nihil  prgescit  con- 
tingenter,  sed  quod  omnia  incommutabili  et  aeterna  infallibilique 
voluntate  et  praevidit  et  proponit  et  facit)."^ — "If  there  had  been  in 
Pharaoh  a  possibility  of  turning  or  Hberty  of  the  will,  so  that  he 
might  have  done  the  opposite,  then  God  could  not  have  predicted 
his  obduracy  so  certainly  (Si  hie  ulLa.  erat  vertibilitas.  aut  libertas. 


14  The  Present   Controversy  07i  Predestination. 

arbitrii  in  Pharaone,  quae  in  utrumqiie  potuisset,  non  potuisset 
Deus  tarn  certo  praedicere  ejus  obdurationem)." — "The  wicked 
man  comes  not,  even  though  he  hear  the  word,  except  the  Father 
inwardly  draw  and  teach  him,  which  He  does  by  bestowing  His 
Spirit.  Here  is  another  kind  of  drawing  than  that  which  is  from 
without"  (through  the  mere  Word)  "(Impius  non  venit,  etiam 
audito  verbo,  nisi  intus  trahat  doceatque  Pater,  quod  facit 
largiendo  Spiritum.  Ibi  alius  tractus  est  quam  is,  qui  foris  est)." 
— "This  is  the  hidden  and  fearful  will  of  God,  by  which  He  de- 
termines in  His  counsel  which  and  what  kind  of  people  shall, 
according  to  His  will  become  fit  for  and  partake  of  His  preached 
and  proffered  mercy.  And  this  will  is  not  to  be  searched  into,  but 
to  be  reverently  worshipped  as  the  most  adorable  mystery  of  di- 
vine majesty,  which  He  has  reserved  for  Himself  alone  and  for- 
bidden us." — "God,  hidden  in  His  majesty,  does  neither  deplore 
nor  remove  the  death  (of  the  sinner),  but  works  life,  death,  and  all 
in  all.  For  He  has  not  restricted  Himself  in  this  regard  in  His 
Word,  but  has  reserved  for  Himself  liberty  over  all  things. — For 
He  (God  as  preached)  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  when  with 
His  word  of  salvation  He  comes  to  all;  and  it  is  the  fault  of  the 
will  which  receives  Him  not,  as  He  says,  Matth.  23 :  How  often 
would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  and  ye  would  not!  Why, 
however,  that  majesty  does  not  remove  this  fault  of  our  will  or 
change  it  in  all  men  since  this  is  not  in  man's  power,  or  why  He 
imputes  it  to  a  man  when  he  cannot  avoid  it,  is  not  for  us  to  in- 
quire, and  though  we  should  inquire  much,  we  would  still  not 
discover  it.  (Deus  absconditus  in  majestate  neque  deplorat  neque 
tollit  mortem,  sed  operatur  vitam,  mortem  et  omnia  in  omni- 
bus. Neque  enim  tum  verbo  suo  definivit  sese  sed  libertum 
sese  reservavit  super  omnia. — Nam  ille  (Deus  prsedicatus)  vult 
omnes  homines  salvos  fieri,  dum  verbo  salutis  ad  omnes  venit, 
vitiumque  est  voluntatis,  quae  non  admittit  eum  sicut  dicit 
Matth.  23:  quoties  volui  congregare  filios  tuos,  et  noluisti. 
Verum  quare  majestas  ilia  vitium  hoc  voluntatis  nostrae  non 
tolHt  aut  mutat  in  omnibus,  cum  non  sit  in  potestate  hominis,  aut 
cur  illud  ei  imputat,  cum  non  possit  homo  eo  carere,  quaerere 
non  licet,  ac  si  multum  quaeras,  nusquam  tamen  invenias.)" — 
This  assuredly  is  not  the  manner  of  expression  nor  the  doc- 
trine of  the  later  Luther,  nor  of  the  Confessions  of  the 
Church  bearing  his  name.  When  our  latest  Confession  ap- 
peals to  this  book  of  Luther  in  the  article  on  the  Free  Will,  it  does 


Dogmatico-Hisiorical  Introduction.  15 

this  referring  at  the  same  time  to  his  later  exposition  of  Genesis, 
where  the  subject  is  not  only  "repeated  and  explained,"  but  where 
he  has  also,  "in  the  best  and  most  careful  way,  guarded  against  all 
misunderstanding  and  perversion,  his  opinion  and  understanding 
of  some  other  peculiar  disputations  introduced  incidentally  by 
Erasmus,  as  of  Absolute  Necessity,  etc.  (Formula  of  Concord, 
Sol.  Decl.  II.,  44,  Jacobs'  Translation,  p.  560,  561).  But  that  Lu- 
ther's De  Servo  Arbitrio  can  be  prized  even  by  those  who  recog- 
nize those  defects  is  seen  by  the  quotation  from  Philippi  above 
and  also  by  the  following  utterances  of  Luthardt  (ibid.,  p.  122) : 
"It  is  a  powerful  composition,  defiant  and  confident,  bold  in  word 
and  thought,  full  of  holy  zeal,  of  mighty  earnestness,  written  from 
the  deepest  convictions  of  his  soul.  It  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant and  richest  of  Luther's  writings.  And  it  is  easily  under- 
stood that  in  later  years,  when  he  was  displeased  with  his  other 
writings  and  with  Saturnine  hunger  would  have  destroyed  these 
children  of  his  spirit,  he  named  this  work,  beside  the  Catechism, 
as  among  those  which  he  could  acknowledge  as  his  true  writings. 
For  scarcely  anywhere  else  do  the  waters  of  his  soul  pour  them- 
selves forth  with  equal  power  and  richness." 

At  first  Melanchthon  went,  if  possible,  even  further  than  Lu- 
ther in  his  doctrine  of  the  absolute  will  of  God.  This  appears  from 
the  following  utterances:  "Free  will  is  a  ridiculous  invention, 
because  our  will  is  so  little  free,  that  it  turns  only  in  the  direction 
toward  which  God  impels  it  (ut  eo  tantum  feratur,  quorsum  a 
Deo  impellitur)." — "We  say  that  God  does  not  only  permit  His 
creatures  to  act,  but  that  properly  He  Himself  works  all  things 
(ipsum  omnia  proprie  agere).  —  As  they  confess  that  the  con- 
version of  Paul  was  properly  God's  work  (propriiun  Dei  opus), 
so  they  should  confess  (fatentur? — most  probably:  fateantur  or 
fatemur)  that  those  works  also  which  are  called  Adiaphora,  as  for 
instance  eating  freely,  things  we  have  in  common  with  the  ani- 
mals (qua  media  vocantur  ut  comedere  libere  communia  cum 
brutis),  as  also  those  which  are  evil,  as  David's  adultery,  are 
properly  God's  work. — Now  it  is  estabHshed  that  God  does  all 
things  not  merely  permissively,  but  potentially  (non  permissive, 
sed  potenter),  so  that,  to  use  a  phrase  of  Augustine,  Judas'  be- 
traval  as  well  as  Paul's  call  is  His  own  proper  work  (proprium 
opus)." — "There  is,  therefore,  no  reason  why  we  should  accept 
the  frigid  explanation  (frigidum  glossema)  that  God  permits  evil, 
yet  does  not  work  it  Himself." — "In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  in 


16  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

man's  power  to  prepare  himself  for  salvation.  It  is  not  in  our 
power  to  convert  ourselves.  From  this  it  follows,  that  since  many- 
are  not  converted,  God  does  not  will  to  save  them." — "They  be- 
lieved not  because  they  were  not  chosen." — "All  that  takes  place, 
takes  place  necessarily  according  to  the  divine  predestination. 
There  is  no  liberty  of  the  will." — Gradually  Melanchthon  came  not 
only  to  give  up  this  awful  standpoint,  but  even  went  to  the  other 
extreme,  embracing  synergism,  by  accepting  three  causes  of 
conversion,  namely,  the  Word  of  God,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the 
consenting  will  of  man;  he  maintained,  that  the  natural  man 
had  the  facultas  applicandi  se  ad  gratiam  (the  faculty  of  applying 
himself  to  the  grace  of  God).  And  in  this  course  Melanchthon  was 
followed  by  his  whole  school;  Philippists  and  synergists  have  be- 
come synonimous  terms.  One  of  the  main  representatives  of  this 
school  was  Victorin  Strigel.  He  compared  free  will  to  a  magnet, 
which,  when  covered  with  the  juice  of  garlic,  ceased  to  attract 
iron,  but  the  moment  this  outward  hindrance  is  removed,  again 
exerts  its  own  proper  power,  the  manifestation  of  which  had  only 
been  arrested  outwardly  (comp.  F.  C.,  art.  H.,  Jacobs'  Transl.,  p. 
554,  15  and  p.  556,  22).  Evidently,  the  doctrine  of  predestination 
held  by  this  school  could  not  be  correct. 

The  leader  of  the  strictly  Lutheran  tendency,  which  battled 
with  all  its  energy  against  Philippism,  was  Flacius.  In  a  lengthy 
debate  with  Strigel,  as  is  well  known,  he  allowed  his  well-founded 
opposition  to  Strigel's  synergistic  interpretation  of  the  word  ac- 
cidens  to  force  him  to  the  proposition,  that  original  sin  is  no  acci- 
dent at  all,  but  the  very  substance  of  fallen  man.  By  substance 
(substantia  formalis  or  forma  substantialis)  he  meant  that  which 
gives  to  man  his  peculiar  condition  morally,  especially  the  moral 
attitude  of  his  soul's  highest  powers,  of  his  reason  and  will.  Prior 
to  the  fall  this  was  the  image  of  God,  perfect  holiness  and  right- 
eousness; after  the  fall  it  was  original  sin.  "The  change  in  the  re- 
lation of  these  powers  to  each  other,  their  destruction  and  de- 
generation, this  was  what  Flacius  understood  by  the  new  forma 
substantialis  which  has  entered  man  in  consequence  of  the  fall. 
And  if  these  terms  are  at  all  employed,  it  must  be  confessed  that 
the  expression  forma  substantialis  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  other, 
forma  accidentalis."  This  is  the  judgment  of  Preger  in  his  ad- 
mirable work,  "Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus  und  seine  Zeit"  (M.  F. 
I.  and  his  Times),  which  dare  not  be  overlooked  by  those  who 
would  understand  aright  the  times  of  the  "Thirty  Years'  War" 


Dogmatico-Historical  Introduction.  17 

within  the  Lvitheran  Church,  extending  from  the  death  of  Luther  to 
the  pubHcation  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  And  yet,  if  we  consent 
to  call  "all  that  is  (alles,  was  da  ist)"  either  substance  or  accident, 
taking  these  terms  in  their  usual  significance,  we  cannot,  as  far  as 
the  terms  are  concerned,  avoid  siding  with  Strigel  over  against 
Flacius,  as  does  the  Formula  of  Concord  in  its  first  article  (Jacobs' 
Transl.  p.  549,  etc.).  To  be  sure,  everything  then  depends  on 
setting  forth  what  kind  of  an  accident  original  sin  is,  namely  the 
total  depravity  and  wholly  perverted  tendency  of  man's  noblest 
powers.  Little  or  nothing  can  be  objected  to  Flacius'  explanation 
of  his  hitherto  unheard-of  expressions.  "It  must  not  be  over- 
looked that  in  reality  the  disputants  dififered  but  slightly,  and  that 
Flacius  meant  by  his  forma  substantialis  what  Alelanchthon  had 
placed  among  the  qualitates."  "He  meant  by  his  calling  original 
sin  forma  substantialis  in  summo  gradu  nothing  but  what  his 
opponents  also  meant."  "And  for  this  reason  alone  the  proposi- 
tion of  Flacius  concerning  sin  as  a  kind  of  substance  seemed 
dangerous  to  his  opponents,  because  they  understood  by  sub- 
stance merely  that  which  is  material,  that  which,  according  to  the 
popular  notion,  can  subsist  for  itself."  Flacius,  accordingly,  was 
misunderstood  by  his  opponents,  and  the  Formula  of  Concord 
does  not  really  condemn  his  opinion  in  its  first  article,  but  rather 
his  mode  of  expression,  as  also  its  interpretation  by  his  opponents 
and  by  some  of  his  own  adherents.  Flacius  then  did  not  make 
"the  devil  the  creator  of  a  new  substance,  but  the  corruptor  of  a 
good  substance.  He  did  not  make  God  the  creator  of  sin,  but 
taught  with  Luther  that  God  formed  man  out  of  the  matter  which 
the  devil  had  corrupted ;  in  the  corrupt  substance  he  distinguished 
matter  and  form,  and  of  the  form  of  the  soul-substance  he  called 
only  the  higher,  moral  form  original  sin."  x^nd  therefore,  he  did 
not  before  his  death,  as  Kurtz,  for  instance,  asserts,  retract  the 
expression  which  he  understood  correctly,  into  which,  however, 
both  synergists  as  well  as  strict  Lutherans  uncharitably  put  an  in- 
terpretation Avholly  repudiated  by  himself.  "But  in  spite  of  this 
we  must  note  that  Flacius  drew  false  inferences  from  his  view. 
The  Wittenberg  school  and  Strigel  had  a  right  to  maintain  against 
Flacius  that  conversion  takes  place  not  wathout  and  not  against 
the  will  of  man,  as  Flacius  taught.  And  Hesshusius  and  his 
friends  were  right  when  they  contended  that  God  did  not  form 
man  out  of  a  simply  sinful  substance,  and  that  the  idea  of  God  was 
not  w^hollv  obliterated  in  man.    These  doctrines  of  Flacius,  how- 


18  77^1?  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

ever,  resulted  from  his  extending  the  power  of  original  sin  too 
far,  and  from  his  annihilating  completely  all  that  is  commonly 
connected  with  the  remnant  of  the  divine  image  in  man;  thus  he 
lost  the  true  idea  of  man's  capacity  for  salvation."  "According  to 
Flacius  conversion  is  always  a  violent  act,  performed  without  the 
will  of  man,  indeed,  against  his  will,  and  all  responsibility  on  his 
part  is  taken  away."  Beyond  doubt  this  view  had  much  to  do  with 
the  choice  of  the  controverted  expression;  although,  according 
to  the  exposition  of  its  originator,  it  may  be  understood  correctly. 
And  its  logical  outcome  had  to  be  an  absolute  predestination. 
Flacius  repells  this  doctrine,  his  associates  in  the  contest  against 
synergism,  as  also  those  who  later  on  became  his  opponents,  ex- 
press it  without  hesitancy.  Wigand  for  instance  teaches  a  grace 
which  is  particular  from  the  start,  and  consequently  finds  himself 
compelled,  like  Augustine,  to  misinterpret  passages  such  as  these: 
"There  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God,"  and  "God  will  have  all 
men  to  be  saved."  "God's  having  no  respect  to  persons  simply 
signifies  that  He  gathers  His  church  from  among  all  peoples, 
without  regard  to  differences  of  sex  or  gifts."  "All  men"  are  "all 
conditions  of  men."  Hesshusius  says  directly:  "Here"  (Rom. 
9,  22)  "the  apostle  discusses  the  causes,  why  God  in  His  election 
passed  by  some  and  left  them  in  their  condemnation,  viz :  That 
He  might  constitute  in  them  an  example  of  His  burning  wrath 
against  sin.  God,  therefore,  does  not  in  this  respect  want  all  to 
be  saved;  for  He  has  not  elected  all  and  does  not  draw  all  by  His 
grace."  And  Amsdorf  writes:  "As  stones  and  blocks  are  in  the 
power  of  God,  so  also  the  will  and  mind  of  man  is  subject  to  the 
will  of  God  (in  voluntate  Dei),  and  consequently  man  cannot  in 
the  least  will  or  choose,  except  what  God  wills  or  declares, 
whether  it  be  in  grace  or  in  wrath."  And  it  must  be  admitted  that 
Luthardt  in  a  certain  sense  is  right  when  he  says  (ibid.,  p.  244) : 
"As  long  as  such  doctrine  could  be  taught  in  the  Church,  and  that 
by  such  an  illustrious  representative  of  the  past  and  such  a  close 
friend  of  Luther,  so  long — it  must  be  confessed — the  Philippistic 
school  was  a  necessity,"  i.  e.,  to  counter-balance  and  prevent  the 
total  and  exclusive  domination  of  this  view.  "For  this  determin- 
ism endangered  the  most  essential  moral  interests  of  practical 
Christianity." 

"In  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  nearly  all  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  evangelical  church  who  touched  upon  this  ques- 
tion, taught  an  absolute  predestination,  an  eternal  foreordination 


Dogmatico-Historical  Introduction.  19 

of  some  unto  salvation,  and  of  others  unto  damnation."  (Tho- 
masius,  ibid.,  II.,  623).  "And  so  Luther  also  exhibited  the  teach- 
ing of  the  evangelical  church  at  this  time,  when  he  put  forth  his 
predestinarian  propositions  against  Erasmus.  But  the  Church 
had  not  yet  attained  purity  and  clearness  in  this  doctrine,  and 
was  endangered  thereby  also  in  other  respects.  Through  the 
Word,  it  was  said,  God  carries  out  His  election  and  His  counsel. 
But  the  Word  is  directed  to  the  many,  to  the  masses.  And  so 
the  conclusion  seemed  plain,  that  God  sent  the  proclamation  of 
salvation  to  many  only  seemingly,  and  that  His  Spirit  does  not 
operate  everywhere  through  the  Word  as  a  means  of  grace. 
Then  again,  the  peace  and  security  of  the  conscience  was  made 
doubtful;  and  further,  there  was  no  satisfactory  answer  to  the 
question,  Where  is  the  church?"  (G.  Plitt,  "Einleitung  in  die  Au- 
gustana" — Introduction  to  the  A.,  I.,  363.)  With  Luther,  how- 
ever, and  his  pupils  absolute  predestination  was  only  an  auxiliary, 
which  at  first  seemed  necessary  to  them  to  guard  the  center, 
salvation  by  grace  alone;  and  the  Lutheran  Church  therefore 
dropped  this  doctrine,  or  rather  never  took  it  up,  when  it  was 
seen  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  shield  this  central  point,  that  in 
fact  by  its  unavoidable  consequences  it  annulled  the  Biblical  and 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  means  of  grace.  It  was  quite  different 
with  the  fathers  of  the  Reformed  Church.  Absolute  predestina- 
tion was  the  center  of  its  entire  theology,  and  its  doctrine  of  the 
means  of  grace  had  to  conform  to  this.  Consequently  tl;is  Church 
has  no  means  of  grace  in  the  Lutheran  sense,  and  can  have  none. 
Zwingli,  for  instance,  writes  in  a  letter  of  the  year  1527:  "It  must 
be  an  unalterable  canon  that  all  things  are  ruled  and  directed  by  the 
providence  of  God ;  otherwise  God  would  not  be  God,  would  not 
be  the  all-wise  and  eternal  Being.  He  worketh  both  to  will  and 
to  do.  Should  some  one  ask  whether  he  can  cater  to  his  lusts, 
since  all  that  he  does  is  done  through  God, — the  questioner,  by  his 
very  question  shows  whose  sheep  he  is.  Suppose  we  grant 
that  through  God's  ordering  this  man  becomes  a  murderer,  yet  it 
is  the  result  of  God's  goodness  alone  that  by  these  signs  he  who 
becomes  a  vessel  of  wrath  betrays  himself  in  that  he  commits  the 
crime  without  repentance.  I  say:  They  become  such  through 
God's  ordering  (Vorsehung),  but  by  the  same  ordering  they  are 
appointed  unto  eternal  punishment.  There  you  have  my  canon, 
which  fortifies  me  against  all  the  Scripture  passages  adduced  in 
favor  of  free  will."     And  in  another  place:     "Election  precedes 


20  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

faith.  Thus  it  comes  that  they  who  have  been  elected  and  have 
not  attained  to  the  knowledge  of  faith,  as  for  instance  children, 
nevertheless  receive  eternal  salvation;  for  it  is  election  that 
saves." — "If,  however,  the  attainment  of  salvation  is  attributed 
to  faith,  then  that  which  originates  from  the  primary  and  actual 
cause  is  ascribed  to  something  secondary,  which  is,  as  it  were, 
only  a  seal.  For  faith  is  the  seal  of  the  election  through  which  I  am 
actually  saved.  If  election  had  not  preceded  as  the  blossom  never 
would  faith  have  followed." — "Everything  that  takes  place  with 
regard  to  man,  whether  it  apply  to  his  body  or  to  his  soul,  pro- 
ceeds from  God  as  the  real  and  only  cause,  so  that  even  the  work 
of  sin  (opus  peccati)  proceeds  from  none  other  than  God,  al- 
though it  is  not  sin  for  Him." — "Faith  itself  does  not  save,  speak- 
ing accurately,  but  it  is  a  sign  of  salvation  and  election.  The 
Father's  drawing  saves  and  justifies,  and  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit;  faith,  however,  is  the  sign  of  all  the  elect."  (Com- 
pare Thomasius,  ibid.,  p.  412,  sqq.)  And  Zwingli  never  retracted 
this.  "This  doctrine  of  predestination  remained  in  Reformed 
theology.  Hence  no  one  took  offense  when  Calvin  gave  it  a  very 
rigid  form."  The  following  are  the  main  features:  "From  all 
eternity  God  has  ordained  salvation  for  some  men  and  damnation 
for  others.  Men  are  thus  not  equally  conditioned  when  they  enter 
life.  Christ's  work  of  redemption  pertains  only  to  the  elect.  For 
them  alone,  therefore,  the  means  of  grace  are  what  they  claim  to 
be;  for  only  in  their  case  do  they  work  eternal  life.  Although 
these  thoughts  did  not  enter  practical  life  in  the  form  of  such 
abstract  conclusions,  but  were  broken  and  modified  by  practical 
tendencies  and  necessities;  yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  here  there 
is  a  view  different  from  the  Lutheran.  The  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
the  appropriation  of  salvation  (Heilsaneignung)  can  never  exist 
beside  such  a  doctrine  of  predestination  and  its  consequences. 
This  doctrine  denies  the  universality  of  the  grace  of  God  and  of 
the  merits  of  Christ,  whereon  alone  the  sinner's  consolation 
rests;  indeed,  it  destroys  the  very  conception  of  compassionate 
grace,  since  it  places  over  against  it  a  punishing  justice,  which 
for  its  own  glorification  has  made  and  appointed  some  of  its  crea- 
tures to  be  vessels  of  wrath.  The  seriousness  of  the  divine  procla- 
mation and  offer  of  salvation  is  thus  made  doubtful  for  the  in- 
dividual sinner,  since  an  outward  and  an  inward  call  are  dis- 
tinguished, yea,  separated  from  eacH  other,  and  thereby  the  prom- 


Dogmatico-Historical  Introduction.  21 

ise  made  in  the  preaclied  Word  robbed  of  its  truth,  and  faith, 
which  rests  altogether  on  the  means  of  grace,  robbed  of  its  cer- 
tainty. 

Yet  the  difference  in  doctrine  between  the  two  churches 
also  on  this  point  was  not  at  once  recognized  as  such.  As  Luther 
took  no  offense  at  Zwingli's  sermon  on  predestination  which  he 
heard  in  1529  at  Marburg,  so  also  other  Lutheran  theologians, 
after  the  controversy  on  the  sacraments  was  renewed,  saw  nothing 
objectionable  in  the  predestinarian  utterances  of  their  opponents. 
The  Philippists,  it  is  true,  like  their  leader,  were  not  satisfied  with 
these  expressions.  But  the  very  theologians  who  were  the  means 
of  advancing  the  Confession  and  bringing  about  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  were  yet  attached  in  good  part  to  predestination,  at- 
tached to  it  manifestly  because  of  their  efforts  thus  to  destroy 
synergism  in  the  root."  Among  these  was,  for  instance,  Flacius, 
although  very  guardedly ;  furthermore^renz,  Wigand,  Amsdorf, 
Hesshus,  Heerbrand;  cf.  Frank,  "Theologie  der  Konkordien- 
formel,"  IV.,  125,  251  et  sq.  "Not  till  the  year  1561  did  predestina- 
tion become  a  mooted  question  between  Reformed  and  Lutheran 
theologians,  and  this  was  occasioned  by  differences  occuring  at 
Strassburg  between  Hieronymus  Zanchi  and  John  jMarbach." 
(Thomasius,  ibid.,  625,  sqq.) 

Zanchi  was  an  adherent  of  the  strict  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion. Marbach  did  not  deny  that  there  is  a  predestination  of  the 
elect,  and  that  by  virtue  of  the  divine  knowledge  there  are  also 
a  definite  number  of  reprobate.  The  real  dispute  turned  on  the 
donum  perseverantiae  (the  gift  of  perseverance),  as  Zanchi  main- 
tained, and  Marbach  denied,  that  the  elect  received  faith  only  once 
and  could  never  fully  lose  it.  An  actual  decision  was  not  reached 
even  now,  since  the  real  difference  was  not  yet  clearly  de- 
fined. In  the  year  1563  a  formula  of  agreement  was  signed,  but 
by  Zanchi  only  with  the  reservation  of  his  own  interpretation. 
The  formula  was  probably  composed  by  Jacob  Andreae.  Calvin 
said  of  it,  that  it  did  not  deny  predestination,  but  covered  it  with  a 
veil.  Thomasius  (ibid.,  629)  is  right  in  saying:  "The  Strassburg 
Formula  lay  wholly  along  the  line  which  Lutheran  theology  had 
for  some  time  taken  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  rather 
feeling  its  way  instinctively  than  seeing  it  clearly.  .  .  .  The 
formula  was,  in  the  line  of  sound  dogmatico-historical  develop- 
ment, the  foundation  of  the  corresponding  article  in  the  Formula 


22  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

of  Concord,  its  author,  as  is  well  known,  using  the  formula  ex- 
tensively." It  wants  predestination  to  be  taught  so  "as  never 
to  appear  to  rob  the  distressed  conscience  of  repentance,  or  of  con- 
solation and  hope."  Predestination  is,  therefore,  to  be  sought 
only  in  Christ,  as  far  as  He  has  revealed  it,  and  by  all  men.  "The 
revealed  will  of  God,  being  in  no  wise  contradicted  by  His  secret 
will,  is  set  before  us  in  Christ,  to  whom  all  must  hold."  "The  fact 
that  God  who  calls  all  does  not  give  faith  to  all,  is  a  secret  known 
only  to  God,  and  never  to  be  fathomed  by  the  human  mind." 
— "The  difference  had  come  to  be  felt.  That  the  contest  ceased  for 
the  time,  was  due  to  the  vacillation  and  indefiniteness  to  some  ex- 
tent yet  existing  concerning  predestination  in  the  Lutheran  Church; 
as  also  to  this  that  as  yet  no  threatening  danger  was  apprehended 
from  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  on  this  point,  as  was  the  case  regard- 
ing the  sacraments.  In  the  first  draught  of  the  formula  of  agree- 
ment from  the  pen  of  Andreas  there  is  no  mention  of  predestina- 
tion. When,  after  treating  of  other  differences,  an  article  'Of 
God's  Eternal  Foreknowledge  and  Election,'  was  introduced  in- 
to the  Formula  of  Concord  as  it  took  shape,  it  was  thought 
necessary  to  justify  its  admission  in  a  certain  sense  by  these 
words:  'Concerning  this  article  no  public  dissension  has  occured 
among  the  theologians  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.'  The  ar- 
ticle, therefore,  referred  more  to  the  future  than  to  the  past. 
There  were  no  long  dogmatico-historical  controversies  to  be 
settled  by  this  article,  but  rather  such  controversies  were  to  be 
prevented,  at  least  in  the  Lutheran  Church  itself.  And  for  this  the 
Church  felt  prepared.  After  it  had  been  decided  to  discuss  this 
doctrinal  difference  in  the  Confession  also,  a  firm  and  fixed  stand 
was  taken  .  It  was  known  that  for  all  that  was  to  be  said  here  an 
actual  uniform  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church  could  be  ap- 
pealed to  .  .  .  This  article  contains  a  summary  of  all  the  pre- 
ceding articles,  or  rather  it  reveals  their  organic  unity,  as  it  goes 
back  to  the  eternal  will  of  God,  which  is  realized  in  the  entire 
revelation  of  salvation  (Heilsoffenbarung).  Certainly,  it  cannot 
be  said  that  by  these  declarations  all  difficulties  are  solved,  nor 
that  all  the  single  propositions  of  the  Confession  are  scientifically 
harmonized  with  each  other.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  is  some 
lack  of  clearness  in  this  respect.  But  the  scientific  result  is  not  the 
first  consideration  in  a  confessional  statement.  The  question  is 
whether  it  gives  expression  to  the  common  faith.    Now,  the  facts 


DogmaticG-Historical  Intyoduction.  23 

of  the  Lutheran  faith  have  been  expressed  by  the  Formula  of 
Concord.  Also  in  this  place  it  testifies  of  the  evangelical  doctrine 
of  free  grace  in  Christ,  and  does  so  by  declaring,  first,  its  abso- 
lute importance  as  the  sole  foundation  of  our  salvation,  over 
against  Semi-Pelagianism,  and,  secondly,  its  universality,  over 
against  a  false  particularism."     (Thomasius,  ibid.,  629  sqq.) 


I. 

DOQMATICO-  HISTORICAL  INTRODUCTION. 


B.    AFTER  THE    FORMULA   OF   CONCORD. 

"In  the  beginning-  of  the  Reformation  nearly  all  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  evangelical  church  who  touched  upon  this 
question  taught  an  absolute  predestination,  an  eternal  foreordina- 
tion  of  sd^iie  to  salvation  and  of  others  to  damnation."  This  was 
true  of  Lutlier  and  Melanchthon  as  well  as  of  Zwingli  and  Calvin, 
although  predestination  with  the  former  did  not  assume  the  all- 
controlling  position  it  had  with  the  latter.  Although  the  Lu- 
theran and  Biblical  doctrine  of  the  means  of  grace  is  not  con- 
sistent with  this  doctrine  of  predestination,  we  find  even  after  Lu- 
ther's death  some  of  his  pupils  still  defending  it;  for  instance 
Wigand,  Hesshusius,  and  Amsdorf.  This  has  been  set  forth  more 
fully  in  the  preceding  discussion.  The  Formula  of  Concord 
thereupon  furnished  the  true  principles  for  understanding  this 
difficult  doctrine  and  furnished  them  in  full  accord  with  the  gen- 
eral Biblical  position  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  the  doctrine  of  Zwingli  and  Calvin,  yet  refraining  from 
entering  dogmatically  upon  all  the  different  questions  concerned. 
It  was  quite  natural  that  there  were,  even  after  the  publication  of 
this  Confession,  some  few  Lutherans  who  for  a  time  expressed 
themselves  in  the  former,  seemingly  Calvinistic  manner  on  pre- 
destination. Chr.  Cornerus,  for  instance,  himself  one  of  the  au- 
thors of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  wrote  on  Rom.  9,  in  his  com- 
mentary, published  1583,  that  it  depends  upon  the  mere  will  of  God 
(situm  esse  in  mera  Dei  voluntate)  whether  He  shows  mercy  to 
a  man  so  as  to  save  him,  or  whether  He  neglects  him  (vel  neg- 
ligat  eum)  so  that  he  perishes  in  his  guilt.  Jacob  Heerbrand, 
author  of  one  of  the  most  widely  read  compends  of  theology, 
teaches  in  his  Disputatio  de  Prasdestinatione  in  an  altogether 
Calvinistic  manner,  using  these  words:  "The  reason  that  many 
fall  away,  of  whom  it  is  written  that  they  had  faith,  is  to  be  thus 
understood,  that  they  had  faith  for  a  time  without  the  true  regen- 


Dogviatico-Historical  Introduction.  25 

eration  of  the  Spirit.  .  .  .  Since  all  have  such"  (corrupt)  "hearts, 
God  by  His  Holy  Spirit  softens  the  hearts  of  some  (namely  of  the 
elect)  and  enlightens  them;  others,  however,  whom  He  will.  He 
leaves  to  themseWes  because  of  their  own  sin."  Yet  over  against 
this  view  a  thoroughgoing  Anticalvinistic  mode  of  thought  and 
expression  was  developed  and  constantly  gained  more  ground. 
We  read, -for  instance,  in  the  "Griindliche  Widerlegung"  (Thor- 
ough Refutation)  of  the  "StafTortisches  Buch"  (one  of  the  most 
prominent  Reformed  controversial  works  against  the  Formula 
of  Concord)  which  appeared  at  Wittenberg  in  1602:  "The  fact 
that  God  brings  some  to  repentance  is  due  to  reasons  which  God 
sees  in  the  hearts  of  men,  which  we,  however,  cannot  see."  And 
^gidus  Hunnius,  one  of  the  chief  supporters  and  defenders  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord  over  against  all  Calvinistic  and  crypto-Cal- 
vinistic  attacks,  writes  in  his  Articulus  de  libero  arbitrio  s. 
humani  arbitrii  viribus  (Rostock,  1598),  p.  (!8:  "The  al)sence  of 
repentance  is  not  to  be  explained  by  synergism,  as  though  a  man 
would  not  believe  when  he  could""  (i.  e.,  of  his  own  power),  "nor 
is  it  to  be  explained  by  an  absolute  decree,  but  according  to  the 
Scriptures  by  a  third  reason  lying  in  the  middle  between  these 
two,  by  the  despising  of  the  order  and  means  of  salvation."  (Com- 
pare with  this  Heppe's  Dogmatics  of  German  Protestanism  in 
the  IGth  Century.    A'ol.  2,  p.  82,  sqq.) 

This  same  Hunnius  is  the  man  who  first  used  the  expression 
"Election  in  view  of  faith"  in  the  controversy  with  the  Calvinists 
then  constantly  increasing,  a  term  which  found  general  ac- 
ceptance among  all  true  Lutheran  theologians,  since,  as  a  brief 
technical  term  for  the  expression  "in  view  of  the  merits  of  Christ 
embraced  and  held  fast  to  tlie  end  by  faith,"  it  defines  precisely 
the  Lutheran  position  over  against  the  Calvinistic  absolute  elec- 
tion. In  the  Refutatio  Thesium  Tossani,  printed  in  front  of  his 
Articulus  de  Providentia  Dei  et  jeterna  Praedestinatione  seu  Elec- 
tione  filiorum  Dei  ad  salutem  (of  the  year  1597),  Hunnius,  for 
instance,  says  (fol.  e.,  3,) :  "We  dare  not  so  conceive  of  this  mys- 
tery, as  though  God  had  first  unconditionally  chosen  a  certain 
number  of  persons  without  regard  to  the  order  of  salvation,  simply 
casting  the  others  a\yay,  and  had  then  established  this  order  of 
salvation  only  for  those  whom  He  so  elected,  as  a  means  for 
bringing  them  to  salvation.  On  the  contrary,  if  the  justice  of 
God  was  to  remain  inviolate,  without  regard  to  this  order,  i.  e., 
to  Christ's  merits,  suffering,  and  death,  which  must  be  embraced 


26  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

by  faith,  no  sinner  could  be  elected  to  eternal  life,  except  there  be 
shown  in  this  order  some  means  whereby  the  eternal  and  infinite 
righteousness  of  God  might  be  satisfied,  so  that  this  election  of 
sinners  to  the  heavenly  kingdom  might  take  place."  Again  (fol. 
e.,  4)  he  says:  "The  reader  must  note  that  Tossanus  in  his  ac- 
cusations constantly  understands  by  'cause'  a  meritorious  cause; 
and  yet  it  is  certain  that  faith,  although  not  placed  among_  the  prin- 
cipal causes  (causas  principales)  of  our  salvation,  is  nevertheless 
termed  a  secondary  cause  (causa  instrumentalis)  according  to  the 
established  usage  approved  by  the  apostolic  writings;  for  with- 
out it  our  salvation  is  not  possible  (constat);  as  also  our  justifi- 
cation is  not  possible  without  faith,  since  justification  is  the  im- 
putation of  Christ's  merits,  and  this  imputation  takes  place  only 
through  faith.  Hence  it  is  faith  (because  of  its  most  noble  object, 
Jesus  Christ)  without  which  the  grace  of  God  cannot  rule  (regnat) 
unto  salvation  in  justification,  nor  have  a  place  in  predestination 
to  produce  an  election  unto  salvation.  For  the  grace  in  election 
and  justification  is  identical.  If  the  grace  of  God  is  not  imputed 
in  justification  as  long  as  Christ's  obedience  is  not  imputed 
through  faith,  then  too  the  grace  of  God  will  remain  away  in  elec- 
tion, and  be  useless  (ociosa)  to  sinful  man  as  long  as  there  is  no 
regard  to  Christ's  obedience  imputed  by  faith." — In  the  year 
1592  the  renowned  Polycarp  Leyser  publicly  and  solemnly  de- 
clared, together  with  other  Lutheran  theologians:  "We  reject 
the  contrary  doctrine,  which  claims  either  that  God  did  not  know 
from  eternity  how  the  children  of  men  would  conduct  (verhalten) 
themselves  toward  the  holy  order  which  He  Himself  established 
for  salvation,  or,  foreseeing  that  some  would  use  this  order  and 
that  the  majority  would  despise  it,  that  He  cared  nought  about  it 
and  determined  nothing  regarding  it.  Both  of  these  opinions 
we  consider  unchristian  and  heathenish."  Several  years  before 
this,  Leyser  had  already  declared  together  with  other  theologians 
of  Saxony:  "The  doctrine  that  teaches  such  a  particularism,  ac- 
cording to  which  God  elected  unto  eternal  life  only  certain  particu- 
lar persons  directly  without  regarding  faith,  merely  because  it  so 
pleased  Him, — this  we  consider  Calvinistic  and  unchristian." — 
The  illustrious  author  of  "Wachet  auf,  ruft  uns  die  Stimme," 
and  "Wie  schon  leuchtet  der  Morgenstern,"  two  excellent  Ger- 
man hymns,  Philipp  Nicolai  (1556-1608)  writes  as  follows 
against  the  formerly  Reformed  Sam.  Huber,  who  denied  every 
particular    election    of    per^sons,    also    an    election    in    view    of 


Do gmatico- Historical  Ijitroduction.  27 

faith:  "Since  all  do  not  obey  the  will  of  God  in  the  gospel,  the 
greater  part  of  mankind  resisting,  and  only  a  few  finishing  their 
course  in  the  divine  path  according  to  the  rule  of  the  preached 
Word,  and  since  the  omniscient  God  knows  all  this  and  sees  it  in 
His  infinite  wisdom,  therefore,  it  does  not  suffice  to  know  only  the 
first  part  of  this  doctrine  concerning  the  universal  compassionate 
will  of  God,  but  the  other  must  also  be  included,  concerning  the 
foreseen  difference  between  men  .  .  .  Moreover,  from  this  fore- 
seen difference  between  men  reprobation  as  well  as  election  fol- 
lows. Since  all  do  not  embrace  the  divinely  appointed  means  of 
salvation,  but  the  greater  part  despises  the  Word,  rejects  faith  in 
Christ  at  once  or  casts  it  away  afterwards,  and  chooses  other 
paths,  and  yet  some  accept  the  gospel  fruitfully  and  continue  in 
faith  unto  their  last  breath,  therefore  not  all  but  only  some  are 
reprobate,  because  of  the  difference  of  faith  and  its  opposite,  un- 
belief."— And  the  well-known  dogmatician,  Leonhard  Hutter 
(1563-1616),  who  is  called  Lutherus  redivivus  (Luther  born  again) 
on  account  of  his  eminent  services  in  upholding  the  pure  doc- 
trine, exclaims  in  his  Explicatio  Libri  Concordiae,  p.  1099:  "It 
is  a  horrible  blindness  or  instability  of  mind  that  will  not  recog- 
nize the  same  condition  and  relation  (conditionem  aut  respectum) 
of  faith  in  the  article  of  election"  (i.  e.,  as  in  the  article  of  justifi- 
cation),"especially  as  it  is  estabHshed  that  faith  is  not  to  be  consid- 
ered the  source  or  foundation  (fons  sive  principium)  of  election 
or  of  justification,  but  only  the  organ  apprehending  that  true  and 
only  fountain  of  election  and  justification,  God's  gratuitous  grace 
prepared  for  us  in  Christ."  Again  (p.  1103)  he  says:  "And  as- 
suredly the  treatment  of  faith  here  referred  to,  the  opponents 
will  not  eliminate  from  the  eternal  decree  of  election,  until 
they  shall  bring  a  testimony  from  the  Scriptures  that  God  has 
decreed  to  save  men  by  means  of  causes  other  than  He  employs  in 
time  to  save  them ;  or,  which  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  that  God 
has  one  decree  of  elction  and  another  decree  of  execution;  which 
merely  to  think  of  God  would  be  impious  and  blasphemous,  inas- 
much as  it  would  make  Him  subject  to  a  certain  mutability." 
(Compare  the  author's  "Priifung  der  'Beleuchtung'  Hrn.  Dr. 
Walthers,"  p.  12.) 

As  a  result  of  the  influence  of  the  Philippists  much  vacilla- 
tion ocurred  at  first  also  in  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany  with 
reference  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  "The  Leipzig  Col- 
loquium" (held  in  1631  by  the  Lutherans,  Hoe  v.  Honegg,  Poly- 


'28  The  Present  Controversy  oji  Predestination. 

•carp  Leyser,  and  Heinrich  Hopffner  of  Saxony,  together  with 
several  German  Reformed  theologians,  for  the  purpose  of  secur- 
ing an  agreement,  and  to  some  extent  at  least  successful)  "was 
the  last  occasion  exhibiting  the  peculiarity  of  the  German  Re- 
formed doctrine  of  predestination.  Over  against  the  powerful 
influence  exerted  by  the  Calvinistic  theology  with  its  prominent 
and  imposing  authorities,  the  German  Reformed  Church  could 
not  preserve  its  individuality.  Moreover,  the  Synod  of  Dort,  in 
which  nearly  all  the  German"  (Reformed)  "state-churches  saw 
themselves  united  with  the  Reformed  abroad  into  one  denomina- 
tion, influenced  the  Reformed  somewhat,  as  the  Formula  of 
Concord  did  the  Lutherans.  Interest  in  cultivating  what 
was  peculiar  to  separate  sections  of  the  Church  by  means 
of  former  relations  vanished  before  the  interest  of  cultiva- 
vating  most  carefully  what  was  common  to  all  and  what 
distiguished  all  from  the  opponents  of  the  Reformed  con- 
fession. German  Reformed  dogmatics,  therefore,  embraced  at 
once  the  infralapsarian  mode  of  reasoning  found  in  non-Ger- 
man theology.  Yet  there  were  always  individual  utterances  indi- 
cating that  the  former  had  its  origin  in  the  development  of  Ger- 
man pf  otestanism."  (Compare  Heppe,  ibid.,  p.  42-79.)  At  the  Leip- 
zig Colloquium  the  Reformed  theologians  of  Brandenburg  and 
Hessia  had  made  the  following  declaration  concerning  election: 
"God  has  elected  from  eternity  in  Jesus  Christ  from  among  the 
corrupt  race  of  mankind  not  all.  but  some,  whose  number  and 
names  are  known  to  Him  alone,  whom  in  His  own  time  He 
will  enlighten  unto  faith  in  Christ,  through  the  power  and  opera- 
tion of  His  Word  and  Spirit,  renew  and  preserve  therein  till  the 
end  and  finally  save  through  faith. — Further,  God  has  also  ordained 
from  eternity  those  who  remain  in  their  sins  and  unbelief  unto 
eternal  damnation  and  cast  them  away,  not  by  such  an  absoluto 
decreto  or  mere  will  and  counsel,  as  though  God  had  ordained 
from  eternity  or  created  in  tinie  the  greater  part  of  the  w'orld,  or 
some  men,  without  regard  to  their  sin  and  unbelief,  unto  eternal 
damnation  or  unto  the  cause  of  this  damnation ;  on  the  contrary, 
this  rejection  as  well  as  the  damnation  comes  by  a  righteous 
judgment,  the  cause  of  which  is  man  himself,  namely  his  sin,  im- 
penitence and  unbelief;  so  that  the  whole  guilt  and  cause  of  the 
rejection  and  damnation  of  the  unbelieving  is  in  themselves,  the 
entire  cause,  however,  of  the  election  and  salvation  of  those  be- 
lieving is  nothing  but  the  pure  grace  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ, 


Dogmatico-Historical  bitroduction.  29' 

agreeably  to  the  Word  of  the  Lord:  O  Israel,  thou  hast  de- 
stroyed thyself;  but  in  me  is  thine  help."  The  Lutheran  theo- 
logians had  given  a  declaration  similar  to  that  of  the  Reformed,, 
viz:  "In  election  God  found  no  cause  or  occasion  for  such  elec- 
tion in  the  elect  themselves,  not  even  a  first  inclination,  motion, 
or  consent  unto  faith,  but  all  that  is  good  in  the  elect  proceeds 
originally  from  the  pure  and  voluntary  grace  of  God,  which  is. 
given  them  in  Christ  Jesus  from  eternity"  ( — given  them  "vor  an- 
deren,"  rather  than  to  the  others,  or  in  preference  to  the  others 
was  added  by  the  Reformed  and  left  out  by  the  Lutherans,  as 
they  did  not,  like  the  former,  make  grace  proceed  from  election 
in  the  narrower  sense  as  its  proper  source,  that  is,  from  the  selec- 
tion of  particular  persons,  but  from  election  in  the  wider  sense 
which  embraces  as  its  first  and  chief  part  the  institution  of  a  uni- 
versal way  of  salvation)  yet  this  did  not  prevent  them  from  con- 
fessing likewise,  as  harmonizing  most  beautifuly  with  the  fore- 
going: "God  from  eternity  has.  elected  those  of  whom  He 
saw  that  in  time  they  would  believe  in  Christ  through  the  power 
and  operation  of  the  Word  and  Spirit,  and  would  persevere  to  the 
end."  Also:  "They  furthermore  consider  everything  that  is 
taught  in  the  Book  of  Concord  concerning  election  correct  and 
in  harmony  with  the  Scriptures.  And  God  especially  elected  us 
through  grace  in  Christ,  but  in  such  a  way  that  He  foresaw  who 
would  perseveringly  and  truly  believe  in  Christ;  and  those  of 
whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would  thus  believe,  He  also  ordained 
and  elected  unto  salvation  and  glory."  (Compare  Augusti,  Cor- 
pus Librorum  Symbolicorum,  qui  in  Ecciesia  Reformatorum  auc- 
toritatem  publicam  obtinuerunt,  pp.  404,  sqq.) 

At  the  Council  of  Dort,  however,  the  following  was  set  forth 
as  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church:  "The  fact  that  God 
gives  faith  to  some  and  not  to  others  is  due  to  His  eternal  decree ; 
for  He  knows  all  His  works  from  eternity,  Actsl5,  18;  Eph.  1,  11. 
And  in  accordance  with  this  decree  He  mercifully  softens  the 
hearts  of  the  elect,  though  they  be  ever  so  hard  (quantumvis 
dura),  and  inclines  (infiectit)  them  unto  faith;  the  non-elect  He 
leaves  in  the  just  judgment  of  their  wickedness  and  obduracy 
(duritise)."  And  the  definition  of  election  is  there  given  thus: 
"Election  is  the  immutable  purpose  of  God,  by  which  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  He  elected  unto  salvation  in  Christ,  ac- 
cording to  the  freest  pleasure  of  His  will,  by  mere  grace,  from  out 
of  the  entire  race  of  mankind  fallen  by  their  own.  fault  from. 


30  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

their  original  innocence  into  sin  and  destruction,  a  definite 
number  of  certain  individuals,  neither  better  nor  worthier  than 
the  rest,  but  in  the  same  common  misery  with  these,  mak- 
ing Christ  from  eternity  the  mediator  and  head  of  all  the 
elect  and  the  foundation  of  salvation,  etc."  Furthermore  it 
is  here  said:  "This  very  election  did  not  take  place  in 
view  of  faith  (ex  prsevisa  fide)  and  of  the  obedience  of 
faith,  of  sanctification,  or  of  any  other  good  quality  or  disposition 
(dispositione)  as  a  cause  or  condition  demanded  in  advance  of 
those  who  were  to  be  elected ;  but  it  was  unto  faith  and  unto  the 
obedience  of  faith  and  unto  sanctification,  etc.  Consequently, 
election  is  the  source  of  every  blessing  belonging  to  salvation, 
whence  faith,  sanctification,  and  the  remaining  gifts  of  salvation, 
and  finally  eternal  life  itself  proceed  as  fruits  and  results,  accord- 
ing to  the  declaration  of  the  Apostle:  'According  as  He  hath 
chosen  us'  (not,  since  we  were,  but)  'that  we  should  be  holy  and 
without  blame  before  Him  in  love,'  Eph.  1,  4."  Again:  "The 
cause  of  this  gracious  election  is  God's  pleasure  alone,  not  con- 
sisting in  this  that  He  has  chosen  certain  human  qualities  or 
actions  from  among  all  that  are  possible,  as  the  condition  of  sal- 
vation, but  in  this  that  He  has  taken  to  be  His  own  certain  definite 
persons  from  the  common  multitude  of  sinners,  as  is  written  Rom. 
9,  11-13;  Acts  13,  48."  And  the  following  doctrine  is  rejected 
as  false,  viz.:  "That  God  did  not  resolve  merely  according  to  His 
righteous  will  to  leave  any  one  in  the  fallen  condition  of  Adam 
and  in  the  common  condition  of  sin  and  damnation,  or  to  pass  any 
one  by  in  imparting  the  grace  necessary  to  faith  and  conversion." 
This  is  said  to  conflict  with  Rom.  9,  18;  Matth.  13,  11;  11,  25.  26. 
(Augusti.  pp.  203  sqq.) 

For  this  reason  the  penetrating  and  subtle  M.  Schnecken- 
burger  was  certainly  right  when  in  his  "Vergleichende  Darstel- 
lung  des  reformierten  und  lutherischen  Lehrbegrififs"  (Compar- 
ison of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Doctrinal  Conception — Stutt- 
gart, J.  B.  Metzler,  1855)  he  sets  forth  the  difference  between  the 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  doctrine  of  election  and  matters 
thereto  pertaining,  as  follows:  "Even  in  this  form  of  doctrine" 
(held  by  some  Reformed  theologians)  "which  makes  a  consilium 
salutis  (a  counsel  of  salvation)  precede  the  decretum  praedestina- 
tionis"  (and  makes  the  former  not  merely,  as  is  commonly  the 
case  with  the  Reformed,  a  means  of  carying  out  the  latter),  "the 
reference  to  individual  persons  thrusts  itself  into  the  foreground. 


Do gmatico- Historical  Litroduction.  31 

regard  being  had  from  eternity,  and  that  exclusively,  to  them. 
They  alone  who  together  constitute  the  mystic  Christ,  the  an- 
ointed race,  are  concerned  in  this  pactum  (covenant),  this  consil- 
ium salutis  (counsel  of  salvation).  And  so  strongly  does  the 
idea  of  subjectivity  enter  already  into  this  consilium,  that  it  is  a 
consilium  salutis  only  for  those  who  will  really  come  to  possess 
this  salus  (salvation),  and  in  no  other  save  this  real  and  therefore 
exclusive  application  can  the  Reformed  idea  be  at  all  conceived. 
....  Here  now  the  Lutheran  idea  dififers  essentially.  It  regards 
the  consilium  gratige  (counsel  of  grace)  by  itself,  referring  it  to  the 
oblatio  (offer)  of  salvation  in  Christ.  Although  it  conceives  the 
founding  of  the  plan  of  salvation  in  God  in  a  manner  essentially 
similar  to  the  Reformed,  yet  it  generally  proceeds  more  simply 
and  provides  for  the  realization  of  this  salvation  partly  in  the  high- 
priestly  ofifice  of  Christ  and  partly  in  the  operations  of  the  three 
persons  of  the  Godhead.  God  desires  to  remove,  and  that  through 
Christ,  the  misery  introduced  by  sin.  This  is  His  benevolentia. 
His  voluntas  prima  or  antecedens  (His  primary  or  antecedent 
will).  By  virtue  of  this  He  sends  Christ,  author  of  the  reconcilia- 
tion, so  that  they  who  believe  on  Him  may  be  redeemed  and  saved. 
And  God  most  earnestly  wants  all  men  to  be  saved  through  Christ. 
Yet  He  has  by  no  means  decreed  that  all  shall  be  saved,  but  only 
those  who  believe  in  Christ.  Only  in  so  far  as  His  prescience 
knew  them  already  before  they  existed  can-  it  be  said  that  He 
elected  them  eternally  unto  salvation.  But  this  eternal  election  is 
not  the  principle  determining  the  entire  development  of  the  indi- 
vidual and  his  final  goal.  On  the  contrary,  the  whole  stress  which 
the  Reformed  view,  in  carrying  out  the  idea  of  grace,  places  upon 
the  eternal  pretemporal  act  of  election,  is  placed  by  the  Lutheran 
view  upon  the  fact  of  actual  universal  redemption  and  of  indi- 
vidual justification,  upon  the  efficacious  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
influencing  man's  decision.  Regard  is  had,  not  so  much  to  the 
two  ends  of  the  moral  development  of  the  individual,  as  to 
the  living  contents  and  course  of  this  development;  and  there- 
fore the  final  issue  is  made  to  depend  upon  the  preceding  develop- 
ment, in  which  the  individual  acts  as  a  true  moral  agent,  and  in 
which  grace  offers  true  means  of  grace,  whose  use  or  abuse  is 
decisive.  This  view,  however,  appears  inconsistent  to  the  mind  of 
the  Reformed,  and  at  the  same  time  lacking  in  piety,  and  he  sets 
up  against  it  his  dogma  of  predestination."  (H.,  p.  139  sq.)  "Why 
now  does  the  Lutheran  fail  to  reach  this  dogma  of  predestination? 


32  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

Does  he  acknowledge  man's  natural  incapacity  for  receiving  the 
divine  less?  No!  Does  he  allow  a  wider  field  for  human  activity 
in  the  genesis  of  faith?  No!  And  yet  he  knows  nothing  of  an 
unconditional  predestination  and  thus  appears  to  the  Reformed 
either  as  acting  inconsistently  or  as  turning  halfway  toward  Pela- 
gianism.  Yet  the  Lutheran  has  no  such  need  for  reflecting  on  the 
causality  of  the  new  principle  of  faith  entering  into  man,  that  he 
must  bring  this  causality  into  systematic  connection  with  the  rest 
of  God's  objective  activity  for  salvation.  He  is  more  satisfied  with 
that  which  is  immediate,  and  therefore  feels  no  need  of  proving 
his  salvation  to  himself  by  reflective  argumentation.  He  indeed 
has  the  idea  of  predestination  as  an  eternal  divine  act;  yet  he 
does  not  apply  this  idea  to  the  genesis  of  faith,  but  to  eternal  salva- 
tion .  .  .  And  therefore  he  makes  the  prgedestinatio,  in  the  sense 
of  divine  foreordination, depend  upon  the  divine  prescience  of 
persevering  faith.  Yet  faith  is  also  for  him  a  pure  gift  of  God  not 
conditioned  by  anything  positive  in  man,  not  even  by  its  accept- 
ance in  so  far  as  this  is  a  positive  action;  for  everything  positive 
is  already  a  divine  gift,  the  reception  of  a  divine  influence.  Nor 
can  it  be  said  that  non-resistance  is  the  absolute  condition"  (in 
the  sense  that  this  would  have  to  be  already  present  before  grace 
could  begin  its  saving  work),  "for  the  reason  that  non-resistance 
exists  only  where  grace  has  broken  and  overcome  the  natural  re- 
sistance; and  what  believer  would  say  to  himself,  that  he  has 
come  to  believe  because  he  did  not  withstand  grace?  and  would 
not  rather  say,  that  he  believed  only  because  grace  has  taken  hold 
of  him?  .  .  .  The  Reformed  Christian  is  bound  to  pursue  the 
thought  of  God's  working  back  to  the  absolute  eternal  decree, 
feeling  himself  compelled  to  make  the  two  opposite  results,  dam- 
nation and  salvation,  depend  equally  thereon;  and  this  for  the 
purpose,  that  he  may  secure  a  firm  foundation  for  his  own  con- 
viction of  faith  and  his  own  consciousness  of  justification,  ob- 
tained by  reflection,  and  render  it  independent  of  any  vacillation 
of  inward  feelings.  The  Lutheran  is  satisfied  with  the  anthropo- 
logical moral  standpoint,  and  accordingly,  when  in  this  he  looks 
back  to  God's  working,  he  distinguishes  between  an  activity  of 
God  positively  communicating  and  another  simply  permitting. 
This  latter,  in  his  view,  extends  so  far  that  even  an  annihilation 
of  the  new  life  implanted  by  faith  becomes  possible  through  man's 
own  guilt ;  indeed,  the  highest  degree  of  guilt  consists  in  this,  that 
the  greatest  measure  of  grace  is  exceeded  by  a  still  greater  meas- 


Dogmatico-Historical  hitroduction.  33 

Lire  of  wickedness."  (Ibid.,  p.  154,  sqq.) — "According  to  the  fore- 
going it  is  clear  that  the  Lutheran  would  have  no  occasion  at  all 
to  develop  a  doctrine  of  predestination  in  the  sense  of  a  divine 
foreordination  of  individuals,  if  this  were  not  in  some  way  de- 
clared by  the  Scriptures.  For  the  Lutheran  the  consilium  salutis 
is,  in  general,  that  in  which  his  interest  concerning  the  eternal  de- 
crees of  God  concentrates;  while  the  Reformed  conceives  of 
this  consilium  salutis  only  as  connected  with  a  predestination 
of  individuals.  Salvation  in  general,  as  a  fact,  is  without  his 
own  especial  reception  of  it,  to  his  mind  no  complete  idea.  .  .  . 
Hence  it  is  one  and  the  same  divine  act,  whereby  Christ  is  ap- 
pointed as  the  Redeemer,  and  whereby  individuals  are  appointed 
as  His  own  whom  He  has  saved.  And  this  appointment  is  the 
intelligible  reason  for  their  entire  spiritual  development  and 
eternal  salvation.  And  now  in  teaching  a  divine  predestination 
on  the  basis  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Lutherans  make  this  dependent 
on  faith,  that  is,  on  the  divine  prescience  of  faith.  In  this  view 
God's  free  grace  does  not  consist  in  this,  that  He  gives  faith  and 
thereby  a  share  in  Christ  and  in  eternal  life  according  to  His  pleas- 
ure, but  in  this  that  He  imparts  to  the  believer,  who  in  himself  is 
a  sinner  and  merits  condemnation,  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  forgive- 
ness and  salvation.  Of  this  grace  man  becomes  certain  in  justi- 
fication, and  the  thought  of  predestination  is  for  him  only  an  ele- 
ment in  his  assurance  of  salvation,  wherewith  he  comforts  him- 
self in  the  battle  and  struggle  of  life.  There  is  nothing  beyond  this 
in  Lutheran  dogmatics,  and  all  further  developments  of  this  mat- 
ter are  only  antitheses,  more  or  less  happily  put,  against  the  Re- 
formed development.  The  fact  that  the  idea  of  predestination  is 
not  found  in  the  common  popular  consciousness  of  Lutherans  is 
already  a  proof  as  to  how  much  this  idea  recedes  in  that  which 
is  characteristic  of  this  denomination;  whereas  Reformed  piety 
nowhere  reveals  any  life  without  making  faith  in  predestination 
very  prominent  in  the  popular  consciousness."  (P.  158,  sq.) 
■ — "The  Reformed  has  the  following  objections  to  make  to  the  Lu- 
theran dogma  referred  to,  viz:  If  faith  were  the  condition  of  a  pre- 
destination that  were  not  depending  alone  upon  itself,  or  upon 
the  divine  volition,  then  salvation,  to  which  predestination  admits, 
would  not  be  a  pure  gift  of  grace  .  .  How  could  God  be  ab- 
solute, if  His  foreordination  were  limited  by  His  foreknowledge 
of  man's  conduct,  instead  of  His  foreknowledge  being  only  the  re- 
flex of  His  own  foreordination?    How  could  the  believer  be  sure 


34  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

of  his  salvation,  if  he  dared  deduce  his  share  in  it  as  a  beHever  only 
from  his  non-resistance  as  the  ultimate  decisive  cause,  and  not 
from  the  irresistible  grace  of  God?  .  .  .  Accordingly,  the  Re- 
formed doctrine  establishes  a  predestination  of  God  uncondi- 
tioned by  His  foreknowledge,  rather  conditioning  this  itself,  pro- 
ducing its  result  with  absolute,  irresistible  power  in  and  with 
men."  P.  159,  sq.)  — "Indeed,  if  the  act  of  faith,  if  regeneration 
in  which  salvation  and  glorificatio  begins  to  realize  itself  already 
in  time,  and  upon  which  its  future  completion  depends  for  the 
individual,  is  not  wholly  dependent  on  predestination,  then  the 
absolute  connection  between  this  and  salvation  would  be  an- 
nulled; not  God,  but  man,  would  be  the  author  of  salvation" 
(according  to  the  Reformed  view).  "When  the  act  of  regenera- 
tion depends  absolutely  upon  predestination,  grace  must  work  in 
it  irresistibly,  and  its  result  must  be  forever  inamissible."  (P.  1G8.) 
"Sunmiing  it  up,  the"  (Reformed)  "doctrine  is  this :  In  all  eternity 
God  in  the  unconditioned  perfection  of  His  power,  and  without 
regard  to  anything  in  man  (decretum  absolutum),  has  elected 
those  who  are  to  be  saved,  and  rejected  those  who  are  to  be 
damned,  for  the  purpose  of  revealing  Himself  in  them  and  upon 
them.  To  the  elect  alone  Christ  and  His  merit  belongs,  by  virtue 
of  the  decretum  particulare ;  to  them  alone  is  this  merit  really  ap- 
plied through  the  vocatio  (particularis),  which  is  efficacious  and 
abiding,  inamissibilis.  They  are  saved  because  God  has  appointed 
them  to  salvation  and  mercifully  applied  all  means  for  this  pur- 
pose. The  others  are  damned  because  God  has  appointed  them 
to  damnation,  and  does  not  work  in  them  the  conditions  of  salva- 
tion, but  hardens  them  into  memorials  of  His  justice.  Thus  essen- 
tially an  absolute  difference  divides  the  human  race,  correspond- 
ing to  the  absolutely  different  attributes  of  God,  which  He  thus 
manifests"  (i.  e.,  His  love  and  His  righteousness — p.  174).  "True, 
those  Reformed  teachers  who  originally  had  belonged  to  the 
Melanchthonian  school  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  did  not  express 
themselves  so  harshly  concerning  the  second  class,  the  reprobate, 
ascribing  their  rejection  rather  to  their  sin  and  unbelief .  Schneck- 
enburger,  however,  proves  that  this  position  is  untenable  for 
those  who  assume  an  absolute  election  for  the  first  class  and 
make  their  faith  and  salvation  depend  on  that  (p.  170  sq). — ^Natur- 
ally,  also  the  Reformed  theologians  cannot  deny  that  a  Chris- 
tian may  be  troubled  concerning  his  election  and  salvation.  We 
read:    "The  more  sincere  a  man  is  the  more  easily  this  trouble 


Do gniatico- Historical  Introduction.  35 

may  attack  him,  when  he  sees  how  the  fruits  of  the  new  life,  which" 
(according  to  Reformed  doctrine)  "are  real  pledges  of  his  elec- 
tion, are  still  so  exceedingly  deformed  by  sin.  In  this  trouble 
there  is  nothing  left  to  do  but  to  consider  the  universal  promises 
of  God,  to  comfort  the  heart  with  its  participation  in  the  saving 
treasures  of  the  Church,  which  unite  us  to  Christ,  and  to  work  out 
our  salvation  with  trembling."  It  is  plain  that  this  advice,  which  is 
continually  repeated  with  various  modifications  in  dogmatic  and 
pastoral  manuals,  taken  strictly,  forsakes  the  basis  of  the  dogma 
and  is  only  intended  to  lead  away  from  it,  so  as  to  ease  and  quiet 
the  heart.  For  if  I  in  advance  know  theoretically  that  the  uni- 
versal promises  apply  in  reality  only  to  certain  individuals,  that 
the  treasures  of  salvation  in  the  Church  belong  in  reality  only  to 
those  for  whom  they  have  been  appointed  from  eternity,  then,  if  I 
think  that  I  have  reason  to  doubt  my  election,  all  this  can  aid  me 
but  little.  And  it  is  equally  hard  to  understand  how  with  such 
doubt  filling  the  heart  salvation  could  possibly  be  worked  out, 
which,  indeed,  would  be  done  with  trembling,  but  would  also  lack 
confidence.  In  fact  this  trouble  concerning  predestination  be- 
comes a  heavy  cross  in  the  practical  care  of  souls,  and  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  overcome  it  without  forsaking  the  Reformed  stand- 
point. Hence  it  is,  indeed,  remarkable  and  yet  natural  enough, 
that  many  know  no  other  way  out  of  the  difficulty  than  this,  that 
they  make  faith  in  one's  own  election  a  duty  which  we  owe  to  God; 
or  that  they  rest  content  with  a  minimum  of  desire  for  election, 
and  take  this  as  a  certain  sign  for  election,  which  must  now  be  in- 
creased and  strengthened  by  greater  faithfulness."  (P.  178,  sq.) 
"The  more  decisively  the  complete  consciousness  of  finiteness  op- 
poses the  idea  that  God  should  come  into  immediate  and  present 
contact  with  us,  and  the  more  in  place  of  this  only  the  idea  of  an 
election  of  God  remains,  antedating  time,  embracing  the  indi- 
vidual, and  fixing  his  entire  development  like  the  result  of  an  in- 
evitable law:  so  much  the  more  must  the  element  of  justification, 
as  an  objective  act  of  God,  carried  into  effect  through  the  media 
gratse  (means  of  grace),  recede  behind  the  element  of  eternal 
election,  in  which  the  vocatio,  regeneratio,  and  justificatio  are  al- 
ready included  as  nothing  more  than  stages  in  the  development 
of  the  individual  under  the  influence  of  grace."  (P.  183,  sq.) — Jus- 
tification "is  looked  upon  by  the  Lutheran  exclusively  as  a  trans- 
cendent act,  immanent  in  God,  and  intransitive,  the  result  of 
which  does  nothing  but  enter  the  consciousness  of  the  subject 


36  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

concerned,  and  is  received  with  the  same  faith  which  for  the  in- 
dividual forms  the  condition  for  bringing  this  divine  act  to  pass/' 
(P.  45  sq.)  "The  actus  forensis,  declaring  the  believing  sinner 
just  by  means  of  the  imputatio  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  takes  place 
at  first  in  the  divine  life-circle,  is,  as  it  were,  an  inner-trinitarian 
act,  the  result  of  which,  the  judgment  of  acquittal  and  the  adoption, 
are  at  once  conferred  through  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  instrumenta 
justifications  (the  means  of  grace)  to  the  individual.  The  mo- 
ment in  which  this  act  with  regard  to  the  individual  takes  place 
is  that  in  which  faith  in  Christ  springs  forth  in  him  from  repen- 
tance." (P.  51.) — "The  Lutheran  doctrine,  desiring  to  carry  out 
the  idea  of  justification  by  faith,  goes  down  into  the  depths  of  the 
judgments  and  decisions  immanent  in  God,  and  at  once  offers 
for  acceptance  by  faith  the  result  of  this  immanent  divine  action 
to  the  believing  subject  in  an  objective  manner,  through  the 
mediation  of  the  Church,  wherein  Christ  Himself  continues  His 
office;  the  Reformed  doctrine,  on  the  contrary,  aims  rather  to 
have  that  which  takes  place  in  God,  the  forensic  judicium,  medi- 
ated by  a  corresponding  action  of  the  subject  within  his  own  self- 
consciousness,  and  prefers  to  call  this  latter  justification  in  the 
most  proper  sense,  without  strictly  distinguishing  it  from  the  ob- 
jective and  immanent  divine  action,  or,  where  this  is  nevertheless 
done,  without  referring  the  divine  act  in  the  same  way  to  the 
single  believing  subject  separately.  This  difference  of  view  is  re- 
lated to  the  one  treated  above,  stating  that  the  man  who  is  justi- 
fied, and  while  he  becomes  justified,  is,  to  the  Reformed  mind, 
a  man  already  regenerated  and  united  with  Christ,  while  to  the 
Lutheran  mind  he  becomes  both  by  this  very  means"  (i.  e.,  justi- 
fication). (P.  63.)  Again:  "We  have  thus"  (in  the  Reformed 
doctrine)  "a  double  devine  act  of  justification,  one  ideal,  antidat- 
ing  time,  one  real,  in  the  judgment  of  the  world.  If  now  another 
act  of  justification,  taking  place  in  time,  is  to  intervene  between 
these  two,  this  can  only  be  sought  where  the  Mediator  and  Head 
of  the  elect,  in  whom  they  are  chosen,  appears  in  the  history  of  the 
world.  And,  therefore,  we  find  especially  prevalent  that  form  of 
doctrine  which  finds  the  divine  declaration  of  the  justification  of 
believers  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ."  (P.  66.)  "The  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  is,  therefore,  really  the  objective  execution  in  time 
of  the  eternal  act  of  justification  on  the  part  of  God,  as  the  declara- 
tion of  His  being  justified.  In  Christ  all  who  are  His  are  justified 
and  need  only  to  become  conscious  of  the  fact."    (P.  68.) 


Dogmatico-Historical  Introduction .  3  i 

Over  against  this  strict  Calvinism  Arminianism  reallv  re- 
tained the  truth  of  the  Bible  in  the  five  propositions  of  its  well- 
known  Remonstrance  of  the  year  1610;  yet  it  erred,  especially 
later  on,  more  and  more  in  Semi-Pelagian  and  rationalistic  direc- 
tions. Beside  Arminianism  Amyraldism  or  the  Universalismiis 
hypotheticus  alone  demands  yet  to  be  briefly  mentioned  as  a  devi- 
ation from  the  Reformed  doctrinal  conception  treated  above.  As 
we  have  hitherto,  wherever  practicable,  to  insure  objectivity  and 
impartiaHty  as  much  as  possible,  allowed  others  to  speak,  and  that 
men  who  are  authorities  and  had  no  connection  whatever  with  the 
recent  predestination  controversy,  so  now  we  quote  the  words  of 
the  well-known  Dr.  A  .  Schweitzer,  who  is  an  undisputed  authority 
in  this  field.  He  writes  in  Herzog's  "Real-Encyclopadie,"  2nd 
ed..  Vol.  I.,  p.  358:  "Amyraldism  holds  fast  to  the  real  particular- 
ism, and  this  in  such  a  manner  that  an  ideal  universalism  is  added. 
The  chief  proposition  is  this :  'There  is  a  will  of  God  desiring  that 
all  men  may  be  saved  with  the  condition  of  faith,  a  condition  which 
they  in  themselves  might  fulfill,  yet  because  of  their  inherited  cor- 
ruption unavoidably  reject,  so  that  this  universal  gracious  will 
actually  saves  no  one.  Then  there  is  a  particular  will  in  God,  by 
which  He  has  eternally  determined  to  save  a  definite  number  of 
definite  persons  and  to  pass  by  all  others  with  this  grace. 
These  elect  are  as  infallibly  saved  as  the  others  are  infallibly 
damned'.  This  synthesis  of  a  real  particularism  and  of  a 
merely  ideal  universalism  which  actually  saves  none,  i.  e.,  this  ad- 
dition of  only  an  ideal  universalism  to  the  orthodox  Calvinistic 
doctrinal  system  of  Dort,  is  the  peculiarity  of  Amyraldism.  It  is 
natural  that  this  system  should  receive  its  name  from  the  element 
peculiar  to  it;  yet  it  is  easy  to  make  the  mistake  and  think  that  this 
hypothetic  universalism  is  hostile  to  the  orthodox  Reformed 
standpoint,  whereas  Amyraut  has  assured  us  and  has  proved  that 
it  may  be  united  with  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  Dort.  The" 
(French  Reformed)  "National  Synod  found  this  innovation"  (in 
the  mode  of  expression)  "free  from  all  heterodoxy;  Amyraut 
had  only  to  say  distinctly,  which  he  gladly  did,  that  the  universal 
will  was  no  predestinating  decree;  but  only  a  demand  and  a  pre- 
cept: 'You  all  believe,  and  you  all  shall  be  saved';  and  that  as  we 
are  all  corrupt,  no  one  can  be  saved  by  this  will  alone  .  .  .  For 
further  proof  of  his  doctrine  he  distinguished  'objective  and  sub- 
jective grace':  only  the  former,  the  ofifer  of  salvation  under  the 
condition  of  repentance  and  faith,  is  universal;  the  latter,  the  con- 


38  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

verting  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart,  which  is  tQ  be 
looked  upon  as  a  moral  influence,  not  as  a  blind  physical  motion,  is 
indeed  given  only  in  a  particular  manner  to  the  elect.  And  just 
because  this  decisive  subjective  grace,  which  alone  really  saves 
sinful  men,  is  particular,  therefore,  objective  grace  can  safely  be 
made  universal,  as  indeed  Calvin  himself  made  it." 


IL 

THE  FORMULA  OF  CONCORD  AND  THE  OLD  LUTHERAN 
DOQMATICIANS. 


The  line  of  thought  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  Article  XL: 
"Of  God's  Eternal  Foreknowledge  and  Election",  is  evidently  the 
following:  The  reason  that  this  doctrine  is  at  all  treated  in  our 
last  Confession  is  not,  as  in  the  other  articles,  because  "public  dis- 
sension, causing  ofTense,  and  that  is  widespread."  had  already 
occured  concerning  it  among  Lutherans;  but  rather  because  the 
Reformed  error  on  this  point  seemed  to  creep  in  also  among 
Lutherans  here  and  there;  and,  as  we  have  already  seen,  these  had 
up  to  this  time  not  yet  attained  a  uniform  and  unambiguous  form 
of  expression  in  setting  forth  this  doctrine.  Thus  no  actual  con- 
troversy was  to  be  settled,  but  the  occurrance  of  a  controversy  was 
to  be  prevented  by  this  Article  XL  Aloreover,  the  doctrine  of 
election,  "if  presented  from  and  according  to  the  pattern  of  the 
divine  Word",  is  of  great  benefit. 

If,  however,  this  doctrine  is  to  be  "presented"  aright,  election, 
in  the  first  place,  must  not  be  confused  with  the  foresight  or  the 
foreknowledge  of  God.  These  two  are  mainly  distinguished  in 
a  twofold  manner.  They  have  not  the  same  object  and  they  are 
not  related  to  their  objects  in  the  same  way.  They  have  not  the 
same  object:  for  the  foreknowledge  of  God  "extends  to  all  crea- 
tures, good  and  bad,"  also  to  the  devil  and  to  inanimate  creatures. 
Eternal  election,  however,  inasmuch  as  it  is  an  appointment  and 
foreordination  of  certain  persons  unto  salvation,  "pertains  .  .  . 
only  to  the  children  of  God".  These  alone  are  elected  unto 
eternal  life,  and  no  one  else.  The  foreknowledge  of  God  and  His 
election  are,  moreover,  not  related  to  their  objects  in  the  same 
way.  The  former  does  not  effect  its  object,  and  is  not  always 
pleased  therewith;  the  latter,  however,  effects  its  object:  and  "is 
also,  from  the  gracious  will  and  pleasure  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus, 
a  cause  which  procures,  works,  helps  and  promotes  what  pertains 
thereto"  (salvation),  i.  e.  the  redemption  of  the  human  race  through 

(■■yj) 


40  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

Christ,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  faith,  and  perseverence  in 
faith,  etc.,  so  that  whoever  beheves  and  is  saved  attains  to  this  only 
by  virtue  of  this  eternal  election  and  ordination  of  God. —  Then, 
too,  it  is  necessary  for  the  correct  "presentation"  of  this  doctrine, 
that  the  idea  of  election  as  a  cause  of  salvation  be  not  made  too 
narrow;  that  we  understand  thereby  not  merely  what  God  has  not 
revealed  to  us  in  detailed  contents,  i.  e.  His  eternal  foreknowledge 
and  foreordination  of  the  individual  persons  who  will  infallibly 
be  saved.  This,  indeed,  belongs  to  election ;  but  it  is  not  its  only, 
not  even  its  chief  part.  If  a  different  view  is  taken,  if  election  is 
restricted  to  the  foreknowledge  and  foreordination  of  individual 
persons  unto  the  infallible  attainment  of  salvation,  then  "strange, 
dangerous,  and  pernicious  thoughts,  which  occasion  and 
strengthen  either  security  and  impenitence  or  despondency  and 
despair",  will  follow.  And  "it  is  without  doul3t  in  no  way  the 
sound  sense  or  right  use  of  the  doctrine  concerning  the  eternal 
foreknowledge  of  God  that  thereby  either  impenitence  or  despair 
should  be  occasioned  or  strengthened." 

When  then,  do  we  "think  and  speak  correctly  and  profitably 
concerning  the  eternal  election,  or  the  predestination  and  fore- 
ordination of  the  childrerk  of  God  to  eternal  life"?  When  we  "take 
together"  "the  entire  doctrine  concerning  the  purpose,  counsel, 
will  and  ordination  of  God  pertaining  to  our  redemption,  call, 
justification,  and  salvation",  according  to  the  example  of  Paul, 
Rom.  8  and  Eph.  1,  and  of  Christ,  Matth.  22;  in  other  words: 
when  the  eternal  institution  or  determination  of  the  universal  way 
of  salvation  is  made  the  first  and  chief  part  of  predestination,  from 
which  the  second  part,  the  election  and  foreordination  of  indi- 
vidual persons  unto  the  infallible  attainment  of  salvation,  mediated 
by  the  omniscience  or  prescience  of  God,  follows  of  itself.  The 
eight  points  which  the  Confession  (Jacobs'  Transl.,  p.  652  sq.) 
names  as  that  which  "God  in  His  purpose  and  counsel  decreed," 
are  nothing  but  a  brief  stateme'nt  of  the  chief  parts  of  the  way  of 
salvation  established  for  all  men  without  distinction.  This  the 
whole  connection,  as  briefly  stated  above,  proves  and  also  the  en- 
tire manner  of  expression.  This  is  established  especially  by  point 
1,  in  which  the  redemption  and  the  reconciliation  of  the  human 
race,  or  of  all  men,  is  set  forth  as  a  part  of  the  purpose  and  counsel 
of  God  or  of  His  election.  It  is  also  proven  by  point  7,  in 
which  preservation  in  faith  is  made  dependent  on  man's  conduct 
toward   saving   grace.      And   point   8,   in   which    "those    whom 


The  Fonmila  of  Concord,  Etc.  41 

He  has  elected"  are  spoken  of,  does  not  contradict  this ;  for  these 
eight  points  are,  as  it  were,  the  ladder  leading  up  from  the  redemp- 
tion of  all  men  to  the  salvation  of  those  who  embrace  this  redemp- 
tion in  persevering  faith.  Whoever  does  this  is  one  of  the  elect. 
The  universal  counsel  of  salvation  comes  to  a  climax  in  the  eternal 
decree  that  those  who  permit  themselves  to  be  conducted  as 
far  as  point  7  shall  be  infallibly  saved.  These  redeemed  and 
called  persons,  and  these  alone,  are  also  the  elect.  And  since 
election  by  means  of  omniscience  is  an  eternal  act  of  God,  while 
the  calHng  and  justification  follow  in  time,  therefore  the  former 
is  mentioned  in  point  8  before  the  latter. 

To  receive  into  heaven  at  last  only  those  who  allow  them- 
selves to  be  led  to  the  end  of  the  way  of  salvation,  chosen  and 
established  in  eternity  for  all  without  exception,  through  the  grace 
of  God  destined  for  all  and  sufficient  for  all,  yet  working  irre- 
sistibly in  none — this  is,  therefore,  the  last  resolution  of  God,  as 
it  were  the  summit  of  the  universal  way  of  salvation.  For 
this  way  of  salvation  is,  as  the  8  points  show,  conditional,  i.  e., 
a  way  upon  which  man  inust  permit  himself  to  be  led,  if  he  would 
be  saved,  and  a  way  upon  which  no  one  is  led  with  irresistible 
force.  And  if  God  were  not  omniscient,  if  all  men  had  not  been 
present  before  Him  from  all  eternity  with  all  that  they  did 
and  left  undone,  their  thoughts  and  words  and  deeds  spread  out 
like  an  open  book  before  Him,  then,  He  might  indeed  have  estab- 
lished the  universal  way  of  salvation  with  its  last  decree,  restricting 
the  infallible  attainment  of  salvation  to  those  who  persevere  in 
faith;  yet  He  could  not  have  chosen  and  foreordained  the  par- 
ticular individual  persons.  Then  election  would  embrace  nothing 
but  the  eternal  institution  or  determination  of  the  universal  way  of 
salvation.  But  since  God  is  omniscient,  election  contains  more, 
namely  the  eternal  selection  of  those  particular  persons  who  will 
infallibly  be  saved.  For  God  does  nothing  in  time  which  He  has 
not  in  eternity  determined  to  do.  But  in  time  He  does  not  permit 
all  men,  but  only  a  part  of  them,  and  that  a  particular  part  to 
enter  through  a  blessed  death  into  eternal  life;  consequently.  He 
has  resolved  to  do  this  in  eternity.  And  therefore,  if  we  would 
treat  election  in  a  complete  way,  we  must  also  include  the  eternal 
choice  of  particular  individual  persons  unto  the  infallible  attain- 
ment of  salvation.  And  therefore  our  Confession  speaks  of  them, 
but  only  in  an  addition  and  appendix  to  the  eight  points.  For 
these  eight  points  or  the  eternal  institution  of  the  universal  order 


42  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

of  salvation  is  the  great  essential  thing  for  us,  is  that  part  of  elec- 
tion upon  which  everything  else  rests  as  upon  an  immovable  foun- 
dation, from  which  everything  else,  also  the  choice  of  individual 
persons,  flows  as  from  its  all-inclusive  source.  The  source  is  pri- 
mary; the  choice,  secondary.  The  former  is  fully  revealed  in 
God's  Word.  Concerning  the  latter  we  know  only  that  it  is  a 
fact,  and  according  to  what  rule  it  took  place,  and  what  kind  of 
persons  those  are  whom  it  embraces.  And  moreover  these  last 
two  points  we  know  only  from  the  former.  Who  the  elect 
persons  are  individually,  we  do  not  know;  for  God  in  His  wisdom 
has  not  revealed  it  to  us.  That  the  choice  of  persons  is  full  of 
comfort  for  us  is  due  only  to  the  fact  that  it  is  a  necessary  result 
of  the  provisions  of  the  universal  order  of  salvation ;  if  this  choice 
were  something  else,  standing  independently  beside  or  above  the 
order  of  salvation,  it  could  offer  no  true  comfort.  The  universal 
order  of  salvation  with  its  grace  appointed  for  all,  sufficient  for 
the  conversion  and  salvation  of  all,  although  working  irresistibly 
in  none,* is  the  source  of  all  comfort  for  sinful  men.  Consequently, 
that  choice  of  persons  which  rests  upon  this  order  is  also  full  of 
comfort.  For  it  cannot  but  be  comforting  to  have  the  joyous 
certainty,  that  the  omniscient  God  knew  me  already  in  eternity 
as  one  continuing  through  His  grace  and  strength  in  the  only 
way  of  salvation ;  and  that  He  therefore  also  embraced  me  already 
in  eternity  as  His  child  with  especial  love,  and  resolved  to  make  all 
things,  joy  as  well  as  sorrow,  work  together  for  good  to  me,  and 
to  save  me  eternally  in  spite  of  all  devils. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  does  not  include  merely  this  ad- 
dition and  appendix  to  the  eight  points,  the  eternal  choice  of  par- 
ticular individual  persons  unto  the  infallible  attainment  of  sal- 
vation, in  the  term  election,  but  also  the  eight  points  themselves 
or  the  eternal  institution  of  the  universal  way  of  salvation,  and 
these  as  the  cliief  part.  This  the  Confession  itself  states  in  unmis- 
takable terms,  not  only  before  enumerating  the  points  referred  to, 
but  also  after  stating  them.  It  says:  "All  this,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  is  comprised  in  the  doctrine  concerning  the  eternal 
election  of  God  to  adoption  and  eternal  salvation,  and  should  be 
comprised  with  it,  and  not  omitted,  when  we  speak  of  God's  pur- 
pose, predestination,  election,  and  ordination  to  salvation."  It 
cannot  be  stated  more  forcil^ly  and  distinctly,  that  the  Confession 
most  certainly  takes  the  eight  points  as  belonging  to  the  very 
idea  of  election,  viewing  them  as  a  part  of  the  eternal  decrees  of 


■   The  Formula  of  Concord,  Etc.  43 

God  that  constitute  election;  and  that  it  does  not  treat  them 
merely  as  something  that  must  indeed  also  be  considered  in  speak- 
ing correctly  of  the  election  which  consists  of  something  entirely 
different,  nor  treat  them  as  merely  the  way  in  which  God  would 
save  the  elect  chosen  according  to  an  altogether  unknown  rule  not 
to  be  derived  with  any  certainty  from  the  universal  order  of  salva- 
tion. 

The  question:  "How  can  we  know  whence,  and  whereby 
can  we  decide,  who  are  the  elect  by  whom  this  doctrine  can  and 
should  be  received  for  comfort?"  the  Confession  then  answers 
by  stating  that,  according  to  the  will  of  God  revealed  in  His  Word, 
that  person  is  among  the  elect  who  follows  the  general  call  through 
God's  help  and  grace,  who  believes  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  does  not 
turn  away  from  Christ,  which  he  may  refrain  from  doing  through 
the  grace  offered  to  every  one.  That,  if  therefore  I  am  not  one  of 
the  elect,  this  is  not  due  to  a  hidden  decree  of  God  standing  beside 
or  above  universal  grace,  but  entirely  due  to  myself,  i.  e.  to  my 
wicked  and  obstinate  resistance  against  the  universal  and  all- 
sufficient  grace  whose  right  use,  rendered  possible  by  this  grace 
itself,  would  place  me  also  among  the  elect.  (Jacobs'  Transl.  p. 
653  sq.,  §  25-33.)  For  the  fact  "that  many  are  called  and 
few  are  chosen"  is  not  owing  to  a  secret  will  of  God  standing  apart 
from  or  above  the  Word  of  God  and  deciding  our  salvation, 
whereby  the  means  of  grace  as  such  would  lose  their  power;  but  it 
is  because  God  has  instituted  an  order  of  salvation  according  to 
which  alone  He  saves,  brings  unto  faith,  and  keeps  in  faith,  and 
because  of  the  wilful  and  obstinate  resistance  of  most  men  to  this 
order,  whereby  they  "foreclose  the  ordinary  way  to  the  Holy 
Ghost,  so  that  He  cannot  efifect  His  work  in  them."  And  thus  the 
divinely-foreseen  difference  in  the  conduct  of  men  toward  the 
Holy  Spirit,  who  works  through  the  means  of  grace  for  their  con- 
version and  salvation,  forms  the  explanation  of  the  fact  that,  al- 
though many  are  called,  yet  only  few  are  chosen.  (Jacobs'  Transl. 
p.  655-657,  §  34-42;  compare  p.  526,  §  12.) 

Looked  at  it  in  this,  the  only  correct  way,  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination is  "a  very  useful,  salutary,  consolatory  doctrine,"  be- 
cause it  gives  to  God  alone  the  honor  of  being  the  meritorious  and 
efficacious  cause  of  our  salvation,  and  takes  this  honor  from  us 
altogether,  founding  our  salvation  wholly  upon  God's  eternal  and 
almighty,  although  not  irresistible,  grace;  which,  if  only  we  do 
not  wilfully  turn  from  it,  will  lead  us  to  the  glorious  goal  in  spite 


44  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

of  our  flesh  and  all  our  foes,  and  will  make  all  things  work  to- 
gether for  our  good.  This  doctrine,  that  God  has  chosen  and 
instituted  such  a  way  of  salvation  for  us, —  a  way  upon  which  it  is 
not  merely  possible  for  all  without  exception  to  be  saved,  but  upon 
which  some  are  constantly  saved  in  reality — affords  also  this  con- 
solation, that  the  enemies  of  the  Church  will  never  succeed  in 
destroying  the  Church,  and  makes  it  plain  "what  is  the  true  Church 
■of  God,"  namely  that  Church  wdiich  teaches  this  way  of  salvation  in 
purity  and  without  adulteration.  And  the  circumstance  that  the 
Confession  counts  among  the  blessings  of  this  doctrine  the  fact,  that 
"also  powerful  admonitions  and  warnings"  are  derived  from  it, 
proves  strikingly  that  for  the  Confession  the  (eternal)  choice  of 
persons  who  will  infaUibly  be  saved  did  not  take  place  without 
regard  to  the  (foreseen)  conduct  of  man  toward  the  means  of 
grace  and  the  Holy  Spirit  working  through  them.  For  what 
"powerful  admonitions  and  warnings"  could  be  found  in  a  doc- 
trine which  makes  the  choice  of  persons  take  place  without  such 
regard?     (Jacobs'  Tr.,  p.  657,  658,  §.  43-51.) 

It  is  true,  there  are  also  mysteries  in  predestination.  But 
these,  as  can  be  seen  from  what  has  been  set  forth  so  far,  do  not 
consist  in  this,  that  we  do  not  know  from  what  premises  the  elec- 
tion results,  or  according  to  what  rule  it  has  taken  place.  They 
consist  rather  in  this,  that  we  do  not  know  for  one  thing,  what 
God  in  His  omniscience  knew  already  in  eternity,  namely  which 
particular  persons  are  the  elect;  and  for  another,  according  to 
what  rule  and  order  God  permits  His  universal  and  all-sufficient 
grace  to  come  to  certain  people  and  nations  and  lands  in  the  Word 
and  Sacraments,  and  even  strengthens  His  universal,  all-sufficient 
grace  (gratia  sufficiens),  making  it  an  especial,  stronger  grace 
(gratia  amplior).  This  we  must  take  as  something  beyond  our 
comprehension  and  submit  to  God's  Word,  according  to  which 
"the  entire  Holy  Trinity,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  direct  all 
men  to  Christ,  as  the  Book  of  Life,  in  which  they  should  seek  the 
eternal  election  of  the  Father,"  so  that  according  to  this  the  possi- 
bility is  given  in  Christ  for  every  man  without  exception  to  be- 
come one  of  the  elect,  and  election  depends  only  on  this,  that  it 
or  eternal  salvation  be  sought  through  faith  in  Christ.  For  "in 
Him  we  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father,  who,  in 
His  eternal  divine  counsel,  determined  that  He  would  save  no  one 
except  those  who  acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe 
on  Him."     This  decree  is  the  chief  part  of  election,  that  part  about 


The  Formula  of  Concord,  Etc.  45. 

which  alone  we  are  to  be  concerned,  and  according  to  which  we 
are  to  conduct  ourselves:  something-  that  we  all  are  able  to  do 
through  the  grace  and  strength  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  active 
for  our  conversion  and  salvation  through  the  means  of  grace. 
(Jacobs'  Tr.  p.  658-6G2,  §  52-75;  compare  p.  527,  §.  13.  14.)  For 
the  drawing  of  the  Father,  without  which  no  one  can  come  to 
Christ,  does  not  take  place  outside  of  and  apart  from  the  means 
of  grace  appointed  for  all  and  efficacious  for  all  alike,  but  it  takes 
place  through  these  very  means.  And  if  a  man  come  not  to 
Christ,  be  not  converted  and  saved,  it  is  entirely  the  fault  of  the 
wilful  and  obstinate  resistance,  which  he  could  refrain  from  by 
means  of  the  strength  of  the  grace  working  upon  him;  it  is  not 
God's  fault.  And  also  the  obduracy,  of  which  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures speak,  for  instance  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh  is  always  a  result 
not  of  the  natural  resistance  which  no  man  can  refrain  from,  as 
long  as  he  is  on  earth  and  lives  in  this  sinful  flesh — for  then  no 
man  could  be  converted  and  saved, —  but  a  result  of  the  wilful  and' 
obstinate  resistance  which  all  may  refrain  from  when  converting 
and  saving  grace  operates  upon  them.  (Jacobs'  Tr.  p.  662-665, 
§  76-86.) 

This  must  be  the  correct  doctrine,  for  it  answers  to  the  test 
given  in  the  start,  namely,  ascribes  all  glory  to  God,  finding  the 
entire  cause  of  our  election  and  salvation,  whether  it  be  the  meri- 
torious or  the  efficacious  cause,  in  Him  alone,  and  giving  no  man 
reason  to  despair  or  grow  secure  (Jacobs'  Tr.  p.  665  sq.),  as  al- 
ready set  forth  above. 

The  attentive  reader  will  have  found  that  the  line  of  thought 
in  Article  XI.  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  just  set  forth,  is  perme- 
ated with  the  view  that  the  chief  part  of  predestination,  as  set  forth 
by  our  Confession,  is  not  the  choice  of  particular  individual 
persons  unto  the  infallible  attainment  of  salvation,  but  the  institu- 
tion or  determination  of  the  universal  way  of  salvation.  And  that 
we  do  not  put  something  foreign  into  the  Confession  with  this, 
assertion,  but  only  interpret  it  correctly,  is  proven  not  only  by  a 
close  and  unprejudiced  examination  of  the  Confession  itself,  but 
also  by  a  comparison  of  other  expressions  of  the  real  author  of  its 
Article  XL,  Martin  Chemnitz,  on  this  point.  In  his  Examen  Con- 
cilii  Tridentini  he  says,  for  instance,  (de  fide  justificante  III.,  23,. 
edit.  Berolin.,  p.  197) :  "The  doctrine  of  predestination  places  before 
us  decrees  formed  by  God  and  revealed  in  His  Word,  concerning- 
the  causes  and  the  manner  of  salvation  and  condemnation.    Such. 


46  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

are  1)  God's  decree  to  redeem  the  human  race  through  the  obedi- 
ence and  sufifering  of  the  Mediator,  Christ;  2)  The  decree,  to  call 
unto  salvation  Jews  as  well  as  gentiles"  (i.  e.  all  men)  "by  means  of 
preaching  that  they  may  partake  of  Christ's  merits ;  3)  The  decree 
of  God,  that  He  will  work  in  the  hearts  of  men  through  His  Spirit 
by  means  of  the  Word  heard ;  4)  The  decree  of  God,  that  He  will 
justify  and  save  those  who,  when  they  feel  their  sin  and  the  wrath 
of  God,  flee  by  faith  to  the  throne  of  grace  and  embrace  the  Media- 
tor, Christ,  offered  in  the  promises  of  the  Gospel,  but  that  He  will 
damn  those  who  reject  His  Word  and  despise  and  refuse  to  re- 
ceive the  promise.  This  is  the  sum  and  the  analysis  of  the  doc- 
trine of  predestination,  as  it  is  revealed  in  the  Word." 

A  blind  man  can  see  that  these  four  decrees  contain  nothing 
but  the  institution  of  the  way  of  salvation  for  all  men  without 
exception,  and  likewise,  that  they  have  precisely  the  same  contents 
as  the  eight  points  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  But  the  institu- 
tion of  the  way  of  salvation  is  the  chief  thing  in  predestination  for 
Chemnitz  to  such  an  extent,  that  he  here  does  not  even  put  in  the 
addition  and  appendix  concerning  the  choice  of  particular  indi- 
vidual persons,  found  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  yet  declares, 
that  he  has  described  predestination  in  its  entirety  and  in  its  single 
parts.  In  the  same  way  he  expresses  himself  in  his  sermon  on  the 
20th  Sunday  after  Trinity  ("Postille"  H.,  p.  551)  and  in  the  Con- 
fession of  the  city  of  Braunschweig  in  the  year  1570,  which  he  at 
least  helped  to  compose  ("Predestination  embraces  totum  de- 
cretum  redemptionis,  vocationis,  justificationis,  gubernationis  et 
glorificationis":  i.  e.  the  entire  counsel  of  redemption,  vocation, 
justification,  government,  and  glorification).  In  his  Enchiridion 
or  manual,  in  which  "the  chief  parts  of  Christian  doctrine"  are 
treated  for  the  instruction  of  the  pastors  in  the  churches  of  the 
principality  of  Braunschweig,  he  published  in  the  year  1574, 
scarcely  three  years  before  the  completion  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord then  already  planned,  an  article  concerning  predestination, 
according  to  which  Article  XI.  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  evi- 
dently worked  out,  and  with  which  this  article  agrees  in  part 
verbatim.  Here  he  gives  the  same  eight  points  found  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  only  in  a  somewhat  more  extended  shape, 
after  the  following  preface:  "Whoever  would  speak  and  think 
correctly,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  of  the  couns.el,  predestina- 
tion, election  or  ordination  of  God  tmto  salvation  must  embrace 
these  things  as  contained  therein,  and  thus  he  will  judge  in  the 


The  Formula  of  Concord,  Etc.  47 

matter  with  simplicity."  The  form,  however,  of  the  eig-ht  points 
in  the  Enchiridion  is  such  that  even  the  plainest  man  must  see,  that 
they  state  the  way  of  salvation  as  appointed  for  all  men  as  such, 
a  universal  way,  not  merely  or  even  chiefly  as  the  way  of  salvation 
for  the  elect.  Thus  the  first  point  reads:  "Since  God  has  fore- 
seen the  fall  of  the  human  race  and  all  that  would  result  therefrom, 
He  decreed  and  ordained  in  His  counsel  in  great  love  and  pure 
mercy  that,  and  in  what  manner.  He  would  save  the  human  race 
through  Christ."  The  eighth  point,  viz:  "That  God  would  save 
in  eternal  life  and  glorify  (Rom.  8,)  those  whom  He  has  called  and 
justified,  if  they  should  persevere  unto  the  end,  AIatth.2J:,i.e.if  they 
should  hold  fast  what  they  began,  their  confidence  and  the  glory- 
ing of  the  hope  firm  unto  the  end,  Heb.  3."  Immediately  after 
this  eighth  point  Chemnitz  continues  in  his  Enchiridion:  "All 
this,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  embraced  and  meant  and  must 
be  understood,  when  we  speak  of  the  purpose,  predestination, 
election  or  ordination  of  God  unto  salvation."  And  this  he  says 
before  he  has  uttered  a  single  word  on  the  choice  of  particular  in- 
dividual persons.  He  could  hardly  have  stated  more  distinctly 
that  also  in  this  article  of  his  Enchiridion  the  chief  thing  in  pre- 
destination was  for  him  the  institution  of  the  universal  way  of 
salvation ;  the  one  thing  to  which  every  other  is  subordinated,  from 
which  every  other,  also  the  choice  of  persons,  proceeds  as  from  its 
source.  He  then,  according  to  the  words  quoted  last,  for  the  sake 
of  completeness,  speaks  also  of  the  choice.  The  entire  form  of  ex- 
pression, however,  shows  that  he  looks  upon  this  choice  as  in- 
cluded in  the  universal  way  of  salvation,  as  naturally  proceeding 
from  it,  and  not  in  the  least  as  resting  upon  a  hidden  decree  of 
God  placed  beside  or  above  this  way  of  salvation  and  separated 
from  it,  even  for  our  enligthened  understanding,  by  a  deep  gulf. 
For  these  are  his  words:  "Is  then  God's  eternal  predestination 
directed  only  to  the  matter  of  salvation,  and  not  also  to  the  persons 
who  are  to  be  saved?  In  this  article  the  Scriptures  always  include 
also  the  persons  of  the  elect;  for  it  is  not  that  God  simply  prepared 
salvation  in  general,  and  that  the  persons  who  desire  to  be  saved 
must  and  can  seek  to  attain  this  salvation  for  themselves,  with 
their  own  powers  and  abilities.  On  the  contrary,  God  in  His 
eternal  counsel,  according  to  His  merciful  purpose,  has  con- 
sidered, foreseen,  and  elected  unto  salvation  each  and  every  per- 
son of  the  elect  who  is  to  be  saved  through  Christ,  and  has  also 
ordained  in  what  manner  He  would  bring  them  thereto,  further 


48  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

and  keep  them  by  His  grace,  gifts,  and  operation."  (Compare  the 
author's  "Priifung  der  'Beleuchtung'  Hrn.  Dr.  Wahher's",  p.  14 
sqq. ;  also  "Zeitblatter",  Vol.  I.  May  number,  p.  185  sqq.) 

It  is  self-evident  that  election  thus  understood,  as  being  for 
the  main  part  the  eternal  institution  of  the  order  of  salvation,  could 
be  called  by  Chemnitz  as  well  as  by  the  Confession  "a  cause"  of 
our  salvation  and  of  everything  pertaining  thereto,  also  of  our 
faith  and  our  justification.  For  we  owe  to  this  election  the  send- 
ing of  the  Son  of  God  into  our  ilesh,  His  vicarious  life,  suffering, 
and  death,  the  entire  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  our  salvation. 
All  this  is  only  the  execution  in  time  of  God's  decrees  formed  for 
the  redemption  and  beatification  of  men  in  eternity,  and  in  their 
entirety  constituting  predestination  in  the  sense  of  Chemnitz  and 
of  our  Confession. 

But  is  not  the  doctrine  of  our  old  Lutheran  dogmaticians  in 
direct  opposition  to  this,  who,  following  Jacob  Andrese,  beside 
Chemnitz  the  chief  author  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,*  call  faith- 
a  cause  of  election?  If  the  dogmaticians  had  spoken  of  election 
in  the  very  same  sense  as  Chemnitz  and  the  Confession,  that  is, 
of  the  same  eternal  decrees  of  God  which  these  two  call  a  cause  of 
our  faith,  and  had  called  faith  the  cause  of  these  decrees,  then  in- 
deed there  would  be  an  irreconcilable  contradiction  between  them. 
But  this  is  not  the  case,  as  is  easily  demonstrated. 

Take  for  instance  B.  Baier,  whose  Compendium  Theologise 
positivse  is  used,  as  far  as  we  know,  to  the  present  day  as  the  basis 
for  dogmatical  instruction  in  the  St.  Louis  Seminary.  He  says 
(Part  HI.  Cap.  XII.  §  2.):  "The  words  predestination  and  elec- 
tion are  used  to  denote  at  one  time  the  decree  concerning  the 
entire  work  of  leading  men  to  salvation;  at  another,  especially 
the  decree  concerning  the  certain  salvation  of  certain  persons 
known  in  a  certain  respect  (sub  certa  ratione)  to  the  divine  in- 
tellect." In  regard  to  the  first  decree  he  says  further:  "And  this 
is  the  wider  signification  of  the  words,  in  which   God's  entire 


*Wheu  the  Reformed  theologian  Beza  raised  the  objection:  "It  is 
false  that  foreseen  faith  is  the  cause  of  predestination  or  of  the  elect, 
for  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Pelagius,"  he  answered:  "Faith  in  Christ  is 
not  a  work  of  nature  or  of  our  human  powers,  but  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Therefore,  when  we  teach  that  faith  in  Christ  is  the  cause 
of  the  eternal  election  of  God  unto  adoption,  it  is  by  no  means  related 
to  the  Pelagian  heresy ;  for  the  Pelagians  attributed  to  human  powers 
what  the  Holy  Spirit  alone  can  produce  and  work." 


The  Forniida  of  Concord,  Etc.  49 

process  so  to  speak,  in  the  work  of  salvation  which  was  to  take 
place  in  time,  is  considered  (concipitur)  as  decreed  from  eternity; 
and  in  this  way  predestination  or  the  actual  election  of  God  is  said 
to  procure  the  salvation  of  God's  children  and  to  dispose  all  thing-s 
pertaining  thereto.  See  the  Formula  of  Concord,  Art.  XL"  The 
same  dogmatician  also  quotes  B.  G.  Cundisius,  who  says  as  fol- 
lows: "The  word  predestination  is  taken  either  in  the  wider  or  ui 
the  stricter  sense.  When  taken  in  the  wider  sense,  it  compre- 
hends the  entire  apparatus  of  the  means  of  salvation;  in  this 
sense  the  Formula  of  Concord  uses  this  word  in  the  Sol.  Declar. 
Art.  XL  Taken  in  the  stricter  sense,  this  word  signifies  only  the 
ordination  of  believers  unto  salvation  according  to  the  purpose  of 
God."  And  Baier  adds:  "The  same  stricter  use  is  also  recog- 
nized by  Balth.  Meisner,  when  he  writes:  Tn  the  first  place  God 
has  appointed  the  means  (of  salvation)  for  all ;  but  because  all  did 
not  accept  them,  therefore  He  has  not  elected  all.  And  therefore 
the  decree  as  to  the  means  is  in  its  order  prior  to  the  decree  of  the 
election"  (of  persons),  "and  therefore  the  merit  of  Christ,  appre- 
hended by  faith  and  considered  from  eternity,  is  not  the  means" 
(for  the  carrying  out)  "of  the  decree"  (of  election),  "but  its  cause'." 

In  the  same  way  does  J.  Fr.  Koenig  (1619-1664)  express  him- 
self in  his  Theologia  positiva  (page  113  scp):  "Taken  in  its  good 
meaning  this  word  (predestination)  is  understood  by  the  orthodox 
either  in  its  wider  signification,  inasmuch  as  it  embraces  all  that 
belongs  to  redemption,  vocation,  justification,  and  salvation,  as  it 
is  taken  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  Art.  XL;  or  in  its  narrower 
signification,  inasmuch  as  it  designates  together  with  purpose  and 
foreknowledge  the  ordination  of  believers  unto  salvation,  as  our 
teachers  are  to  be  understood,  who  say  that  faith  belongs  to  elec- 
tion (fideni  electionem  ingredi);  or  in  its  narrowest  signification, 
for  foreordination  merely,  as  distinguished  from  purpose  and  fore- 
knowledge, in  which  signification  election  does  not  include  faith, 
but  presupposes  it,  as  it  has  taken  place  in  view  of  faith,  this  being 
prior  in  order." 

.i^gidius  Hunnius  (1550-1603)  writes  in  his  Refutatio  Thes- 
ium  Tossani  (fol.  e.  4  sq.) :  "And  that  the  Christian  reader  may 
comprehend  the  matter  more  easily,  it  must  be  held  fast  that  in 
regard  to  the  dififerent  objects,  namely  the  persons  and  the  things 
with  which  this  eternal  purpose  of  God  is  concerned,  there  are 
evidently,  as  it  w'cre,  two  parts  of  this  purpose.  One  is  the  elec- 
tion (electio),  which  regards  the  persons  to  be  chosen;  tlie  other 


50  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

the  ordination  of  means.  Because  these  persons,  by  nature  sinful 
and  subject  to  the  divine  wrath,  could  not  for  the  cause  already 
mentioned"  (the  holiness  and  righteousness  of  God)  "be  forth- 
with and  unconditionally  (absolute)  chosen,  God  in  His 
counsel  appointed  an  order  of  means,  through  which  He  might 
renew  these  persons,  and  lead  them  to  the  goal  (finis)  of  election. 
Thus,  in  regard  to  the  election  of  those  who  are  to  be  saved,  Christ 
with  His  merit,  suffering,  and  obedience  stands  throughout  as  the 
cause  in  the  very  decree  of  election  itself,  although  His  suffering 
and  death  miist  be  regarded  as  the  effect,  when  considered  with 
reference  to  the  ordination  and  institution  of  means,  for  the  reason 
that  even  the  death  of  Christ  itself  belongs  to  these  means  for  the 
designed  restoration.  Thus  faith  also  is  indeed  a  result  of  the 
eternal  ordination  of  means,  and  in  this  regard  subsequent  to  the 
vocation  and  proceeding  from  it  in  time.  And  yet  faith,  by  virtue 
of  its  saving  relation  to  the  object  always  connected  with  it  (correl- 
atum  suum),  viz:  Christ,  stands  at  the  same  time  with  this  object 
in  relation  to  the  election  of  persons,  inasmuch  as  God,  when  He 
chose  us,  regarded  the  suffering  of  His  Son,  to  be  undergone  in 
time,  as  the  meritorious  cause,  and  faith  as  the  means  whereby 
alone  the  foundation  of  election,  Christ  Jesus,  is  embraced  and  His 
merit,  wherein  we  are  chosen,  made  our  own  and  the  righteous- 
ness of  His  obedience  imputed  to  us  for  salvation.  In  this  way 
then  we  are  said  to  be  elected  in  Christ,  not  only  inasmuch  as  He 
is  the  originator  and  beginner  of  our  salvation  through  the 
righteousness  obtained  for  us,  but  also  inasmuch  as  He  is  the  fin- 
isher of  our  salvation  through  the  righteousness  imputed  to  us 
by  means  of  faith." 

The  very  same  thing  is  presented  by  Leonhard  Hutter  (1563- 
1616).  In  his  Explicatio  Libri  Concordiae  we  read  among  other 
matters  (p.  1108  sq.) :  "We  have  stated  above  that  God's  eternal 
purpose  refers  to  two  different  objects,  one  of  persons,  another  of 
things,  and  that  according  to  these  two  objects  there  are  also  two 
parts  in  the  decree  of  election,  of  which  one  is  called  election"  (in 
the  narrower  sense)  "referring  to  the  person  to  be  elected;  the 
other  is  called  the  ordination  or  appointment  of  means  (ordinatio 
mediorum).  Yet  these  two  parts,  though  distinct,  are  not  to  be 
torn  asunder;  They  unite  in  constituting  the  decree  of  election. 
Although  the  means  belonging  to  this  order  follow  each  other  in 
their  course,  and  one  flows  from  the  other  as  effect  from  cause, 
and  in  such  manner  that  the  effect  of  the  divine  vocation  appears 


The  Formula  of  Concord,   Etc.  51 

to  be  the  preaching-  of  the  Word  and  the  administration  of  the 
Sacraments;  and  on  the  other  hand  faith  depends  on  the  Word 
and  the  Sacraments  as  an  efifect  upon  its  cause ;  yet  if  this  order  be 
regarded  in  the  mind  of  God  who  elects,  it  must  clearly  appear 
that  the  assertion  of  our  opponents  is  false,  when  they  simply 
assert  that  neither  the  vocation  nor  the  election  depends  on  faith 
(esse  ex  fide).  For  sinful  man  could  not  be  elected  uncondition- 
ally (absolute),  without  first  satisfying  the  divine  justice  com- 
pletely; and  therefore  God  already  in  all  eternity  ordained  certain 
means  through  which  He  would  not  only  save  sinful  man,  but  also 
lead  him  unto  salvation,  that  is  unto  the  goal  of  election.  These 
means,  however,  are  none  other  than  Christ,  considered  with  re- 
gard to  His  merifs,  and  faith  apprehending  this  merit  of  Christ, 
the  Savior.  Accordingly,  these  means,  being  considered  now  with 
regard  to  election,  now  with  regard  to  the  order,  attain  a  double 
relation,  one  of  cause,  and  one  of  efifect.  For  Christ  attains  with 
respect  to  the  election  of  the  persons  to  be  saved  the  relation  of 
cause,  since  without  the  merit  of  Christ  no  mortal  can  be  elected 
unto  salvation.  Yet  again  this  merit  of  Christ,  if  referred  to  the 
order  of  the  means  of  salvation,  attains  the  relation  of  effect,  be- 
cause this  very  merit  of  Christ  is  one  of  these  means  for  the  realiza- 
tion of  election.  Similarly,  faith,  which  also  belongs  to  the  order 
of  means,  is  an  effect  of  this  order  of  means,  and  in  this  respect 
subsequent  to  the  vocation,  and  subsequent  also  to  the  preaching 
of  the  Word  and  the  use  of  the  Sacraments.  But  inasmuch  as 
faith  sustains  a  saving  relation  to  its  correlative,  Christ,  and  thus 
enters  the  election  of  a  person,  it  certainly  also  attains  the  relation 
of  cause,  although  not  that  of  a  meritorious  or  efficient,  but  of  an 
instrumental  cause." 

Hieronymus  Kromayer  (1610-1670)  in  his  Theologia  posi- 
tivo-polemica  (p.  388)  replies  to  those  who  set  over  against  the 
doctrine  of  election  in  view  of  faith  "the  authority  of  Luther,  who 
says  in  his  preface  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  that  faith  flows 
from  predestination",  as  follows:  "We  distinguish  between  a 
predestination  of  persons  and  a  predestination  of  means.  When 
Luther  says  that  faith  flows  from  predestination,  he  understands 
the  predestination  of  means",  i.  e.  that  which  we  have  above  called 
the  eternal  institution  of  the  universal  way  of  salvation.  (Com- 
pare "Zeitblatter",  Vol.  L,  p.  154  sqq.) 

The  apparent  contradiction  between  our  old  Lutheran  dog- 
maticians  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Formula  of  Concord  and 


52  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

Chemnitz  and  perhaps  also  Luthei,  at  least  the  later  Luther,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  removed  very  readily  by  noting  the  fact  that 
for  the  sake  of  a  more  accurate  dogmatical  elucidation  the  former 
treated  the  second  part  of  predestination  in  the  sense  of  the  latter, 
viz.  the  election  of  certain  persons  unto  the  infallible  attainment  of 
salvation  by  itself,  and  called  it  predestination  (in  the  narrower 
sense).  Whether  they  did  well  in  thus  using  a  terminology  differ- 
ent from  the  Confession,  a  terminology  which,  as  the  recent  pre- 
destination controversy  has  shown,  could  produce  confusion,  this 
is  a  qviestion  concerning  which  a  diiiference  of  opinion  is  possible 
among  faithful  Lutherans.  Yet  it  is  impossible,  taking  an  unpreju- 
diced view  of  the  matter,  to  detect  the  slightest  diiTerence  in  the 
doctrine  itself  between  the  dogmaticians  and  the  Confession. 
As  the  difference  between  the  Lvitheran  and  the  Reformed  spirit 
grew  clearer  and  distincter,  the  dogmaticians  were  compelled  to 
develop  and  establish  one  point  of  the  Confession  more  ex- 
tensively, and  this  they  did,  as  the  line  of  thought  in  the  Confession 
itself  has  shown  us,  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  this  Confession.  For 
the  essential  thought  of  our  dogmaticians  is  precisely  that  of  the 
Confession,  namely,  that  the  election  of  particular  individual  per- 
sons who  will  infallibly  attain  salvation,  follows  as  a  matter  of 
course  from  the  eternal  institution  of  the  universal  way  of  salva- 
tion, by  virtue  of  the  omniscience  of  God;  as  also  the  so-called 
Syllogismus  praedestinatorius  of  the  dogmaticians  concisely  states 
it:  the  so-called  major  (viz:  "He  who  perseveringly  believes  in 
Christ  shall  be  infallibly  saved")  is  nothing  but  the  eighth  point  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord;  and  in  so  far  a  brief  summary  of  the 
entire  eight  points,  or  of  the  universal  order  of  salvation  itself. 


IIL 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   PREDESTINATION   IN   THE 
MISSOURI   SYNOD. 


A.    BEFORE  THE   YEAR   1877. 

Dr.  Walther,  as  is  generally  known,  was  the  theological 
leader  of  the  Missouri  Synod,  and  this  in  a  way  in  which  a 
single  man  has  seldom  been  the  leader  of  a  religious  body.  What- 
ever he  said,  wrote,  did,  or  approved  in  religious  matters  was 
looked  upon,  unless  he  himself  modified  or  retracted  it  (and  this 
was  rare)  in  the  Synod  and  accordingly  also  outside  of  it,  as  if  the 
Synod  itself  had  said,  written,  done,  or  approved  it.  When,  there- 
fore, we  want  to  discuss  the  doctrine  of  predestination  in  the  Mis- 
souri Synod,  w^e  need  not  confine  ourselves  in  our  statements  and 
proofs  to  the  offtcial  utterances  of  this  body.  In  fact  there  are  no 
such  utterances  for  the  period  to  which  we  here  wish  to  draw  at- 
tention. With  one  single  exception  we  shall  here  base  our  discus- 
sion on  the  periodicals  of  the  Synod,  edited  by  Dr.  Walther. 
Whatever  appeared  in  these  periodicals  without  a  dissenting  or 
correcting  remark  from  Dr.  Walther,  was  considered,  according 
to  the  principle  uttered  repeatedly  by  himself  and  acknowledged 
by  the  Synod,  as  stamped  by  him  with  the  seal  of  orthodoxy ;  and 
it  must  therefore  be  looked  upon  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Missouri 
Synod  at  the  time.  Prefacing  these  remarks,  which  may  be  neces- 
sary especially  for  younger  readers,  we  proceed  to  the  discussion 
of  the  doctrine  of  predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod  prior  to 
the  year  1877.  This  year  forms  the  distinct  line  of  division  be- 
tween the  earlier  and  the  later  doctrine  of  Missouri  on  predestina- 
tion. 

In  April  of  the  year  1847  the  Missouri  Synod  was  founded  by 
Dr.  Walther,  Dr.  Sihler,  Rev.  Wyneken,  and  others;  and  the 
"Lutheraner,"  published  already  by  Dr.  Walther  since  Septem- 
ber, 1844,  was  made  the  organ  of  the  new  synodical  body.  This 
paper,  in  the  24th  number  of  its  2d  vol.,  July  25,  1846,  in  an  article 
by  Rev.  Schieferdecker,  entitled:    "The  Apostolic  Symbol  and  Its 

(53) 


54  The  Present  Controversy,  on  Predestination. 

Varying  Interpretations,"  had  already  branded  the  following  as 
false  Reformed  doctrine,  viz:  That  God  "by  an  absolute  decree 
has  elected  some  to  life  and  condemned  others  to  death,  in  which 
decree  man's  conduct  (Verhalten)  has  found  no  consideration 
whatever,  nor  also  faith;  for  not  sin  and  unbelief  are  the  true 
causes  of  reprobation,  if  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures- is  to  remain 
inviolate,  but  the  good  pleasure  of  God  and  His  freest  will." 

In  the  beginning  of  the  year  1855  appeared  the  first  number 
of  "Lehre  und  Wehre,"  the  theological  organ  of  the  Missouri 
Synod,  also  edited  by  Dr.  Walther.  Already  the  first  volume 
brought  (p.  234  sqq.)  "Nineteen  theses  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
eternal  foreordination  and  the  merciful  election  unto  eternal  life" 
as  "contributed  by  Prof.  Sihler,  Ph.D."  We  would  draw  attention 
especially  to  the  following  theses : 

"Thesis  1.  Predestination  is  that  act  of  God  in  which,  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  thus  from  all  eternity.  He  determined, 
according  to  the  purpose  of  His  will,  to  save  eternally,  for  Christ's 
sake  and  for  the  praise  of  His  glorious  grace,  all  those  whose 
persevering  faith  in  Christ  He  has  foreseen.  Eph.  1,  4-6;  2  Tim. 
1,  9." 

"Thesis  3.  This  gracious  decree  of  God  unto  salvation  is 
not  absolute,  nor  does  it  originate  in  the  hidden  and  concealed 
depths  of  the  divine  will,  but  it  includes  at  once  all  causes,  means, 
and  ways  for  eternal  salvation,  and  is  set  in  a  definite  order,  out- 
side of  which  it  is  not  to  be  realized,  nor  can  it  be  realized  in  man." 

"Thesis  10.  Foreseen  faith  is  not  the  cause  of  election;  for 
we  are  elected  not  because  of  faith,  but  because  of  Christ." 

"Thesis  11.  Although  all  men  are  redeemed  because  of 
Christ  (or  in  Christ),  according  to  His  work  and  merit,  yet  only 
those  are  elected  who  embrace  and  apprehend  Him  in  true  faith 
and  finally  persevere  therein." 

"Thesis  12.  Just  as  little  (see  Thesis  10)  is  election  simply 
the  cause  of  faith,  which  is  evinced  by  the  final  fall  of  temporary 
beHevers ;  faith,  however,  depends  on  election  as  that  which  is  or- 
dained upon  that  which  ordains,  and  is  a  member  of  the  order  (see 
Thesis  4)  in  which  God  offers  the  blessing  of  election  unto  men." 
According  to  this,  election,  which  is  possible  and  in  so  far  exists 
for  every  man,  depends  on  man  permitting  himself  to  be  led  ac- 
cording to  the  "divine  order  unto  blessedness  and  salvation," 
which,  according  to  Thesis  4,  is  for  all  men. 

In  the  2d  Vol.  of  "Lehre  und  Wehre,"  p.  305,  we  have  the 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       55 

beginning  of  a  long  dissertation  by  Rev.  O.  Fiirbringer,  en- 
titled: "Concerning  the  Doctrine  of  Election  and  Several  Mat- 
ters Thereto  Pertaining,"  from  which  we  quote  the  following  im- 
portant passages:  "Dark  and  mysterious  are  the  depths  of  evil  in 
human  nature,  when  they  come  in  conflict  with  the  divine 
workings  of  the  Word.  There  is  then  woven  and  formed,  by 
manifold  heavy  guilt  known  only  to  God,  a  disposition  in  the 
innermost  heart  which,  instead  of  grace  and  forgiveness,  chal- 
lenges the  divine  justice  and  punishment"  (p.  314).  "Before  all 
time  God  has  resolved  to  save  man,  lost  and  condemned  through 
the  fall,  in  Jesus  Christ,  His  Son,  and  since  it  was  not  hidden  from 
Him,  whose  eye  beheld  us  before  He  had  formed  us,  who  among 
men  would  recognize  His  Savior  and  truly  believe  in  Him  to  the 
end.  He  resolved  to  put  these  into  that  condition  in  which  His 
gracious  will  would  glorify  itself  in  them.  But  if  God  (who  re- 
solved to  do  this  and  would  therefore  impart  it)  foreknew  these 
as  creatures  who  through  faith  would  be  saved,  then  He  thereby 
at  the  same  time  predestinated  them  unto  all  things  necessary  for 
the  attainment  of  salvation,  as  persons  who  will  not  be  rejected, 
in  whom  the  decree  of  salvation  is  realized"  (p.  315 — here  the 
election  of  persons  is  made  dependent  on  the  foreknowledge  of 
God  or  upon  His  "foreseeing").  "Is  God's  eternal  election  the 
cause  of  salvation  for  His  believers  in  the  sense  that  it  first  of  all 
works  faith?  It  must  be  held  fast  above  all  else  that  election  is  in 
the  first  place  neither  the  foundation,  nor  the  means,  nor  the 
condition  of  salvation ;  for  these  are  Christ,  His  Gospel,  and  the 
faith  given  thereby.  In  the  second  place,  election  is  not  the  cause 
of  our  faith,  in  so  far  as  faith  would  be  the  effect  of  election ;  for 
the  Word  works  faith.  But  since  God's  election  appoints  and  or- 
dains those  whom  He  knows  as  His  own  in  advance  unto  salva- 
tion, it  is  indeed  the  cause  effecting  their  salvation  in  so  far,  as  it 
makes  all  things  during  this  time  of  grace  adapt  themselves  to 
this  end  alone.  It  brings  about  that  foreseen  faith  and  all  that 
proceeds  from  it  is  realized  through  the  Word  coming  to  us  and 
felt  effectively  by  all  who  hear  it.  This  is  the  point  of  difference, 
dividing  the  pure  doctrine  from  the  Reformed  particularistic  doc- 
trine, viz:  That  the  power  of  the  divine  Word  unto  con- 
version and  regeneration  has  not  predestination  as  its  presup- 
position." (P.  321.)  "That  many  harden  themselves  more  and 
more  is,  as  a  clear  consequence,  not  a  natural  necessity,  but  an 
accidental  effect  of  the  Word,  which  alwavs  aims  onlv  at-  sancti- 


56  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

fication  and  salvation ;  this  hardening-  has  its  basis  in  the  constitu- 
tion and  state  of  human  hearts,  which  by  nature  have  an  evil  will. 
In  their  original  depravity  they  are  therefore  equally  capable  and 
equally  incapable  of  that  which  is  spoken  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  i.  e., 
they  are  dead  in  tresspasses  and  sins.  Only  the  constantly  contin- 
ued resistance  of  one  upheld  by  His  almighty  hand,  a  resistance 
against  the  working  activity  of  the  Gospel,  contrary  to  the  inward 
better  conviction  of  conscience,  called  out  by  hearing  and  as  often 
as  hearing  takes  place — only  this  has  as  its  inevitable  result  the  de- 
velopment of  the  sinful  free-will  power  and  the  curse  of  being  cast 
away."  (P.  322.)  "From  the  purpose  to  save  only  those  who 
persevere  in  faith,  it  (i.  e.  the  Formula  of  Concord)  here  de- 
rives their  election.  But  this  conjunction  of  the  two  can  be  con- 
ceived only  as  mediated  by  foresight,  inasmuch  as  God,  who  de- 
sires by  all  means  to  communicate  his  salvation,  yet  only  on  con- 
dition of  persevering  faith,  restricts  His  counsel  of  salvation  to 
this  alone,  and  ordains  all  thereto  of  whom  He  foresaw  this  faith 
and  thereby  foresaw  salvation,  because  His  purpose  can- 
not and  will  not  fail;  for  a  blind  predestination,  unenlightened 
by  knowledge,  is  unknown  to  the  Confession.  And  thus  the 
strictly  Lutheran  Leonhard  H utter,  who  speaks  in  his  Compend 
for  the  most  part  in  the  words  of  the  Symbolic  Books,  and  not  in 
the  least  contradicting  them,  teaches  as  follows  (ed.  Lpz.,  p.  332, 
sq.):  Christus  in  decreto  electionis  consideratur  non  tantum  ut 
universalis  mediator,  sed  et  quatenus  ipse  ab  hominibus  fide  actu 
apprehenditur,  etc.  Ousest.  27:  Ergone  statuis,  Deum  respectu 
prsevisse  fidei  elegisse  homines?  Ouidni  statuerem,  quum  scrip- 
tura  sacra  hoc  dilucidissime  affirmet?  Thesis  1.  Deus  seterno 
suo  consilio  decrevit,  quod  praeter  eos,  qui  fiilium  ejus  Jesum 
Christum  vera  fide  agnoscunt,  neminem  velit  salvum  facere. 
Ergo:  thesis  2.  Deus  eligit  hominem  ad  salutem  respectu 
fidei  praevisae."  (Christ  is  considered  in  the  decree  of  election  not 
only  as  the  universal  Mediator,  but  also  inasmuch  as  He  is  actually 
apprehended  of  men  by  faith,  etc.  Question  27:  Do  you  there- 
fore teach  that  God  elected  men  with  regard  to  foreseen  faith? 
Why  should  I  not  teach  this,  when  the  Sacred  Scriptures  affirm 
this  most  lucidly?  Thesis  1:  God  decreed  in  His  eternal  counsel 
that  outside  of  those  who  know  His  Son  Jesus  Christ  in  true  faith, 
He  would  save  none.  Consequently,  thesis  2  reads:  God  elected 
man  to  salvation  with  regard  to  foreseen  faith.)  "Note  under  his 
dicta  probantia,  especially  John  17,  20;  2  Thess.  2,  13;  James  2,  5. 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       57 

The  simplest  dogmatic  statements  followed  for  him:  Forma 
xslectionis  Dei  in  prothesis,  prognosi  et  proorismo  consistit: 
prothesis,  propositum,  est  voluntas  Dei,  ut,  quicunque  credit  in 
Filium  (sc.  perseveranter  s.  ad  finem  usque),  habeat  vitam  in 
asternum;  prognosis,  prsescientia,  est,  qua  ab  geterno  prsevidit 
singula  individua  in  Christum  (sic)  creditura;  proorismus,  ipsa 
prsedestinatio,  qua  iisdem  dedit  vitam  gesternam — electio  facta 
est  secundum  Dei  propositum  et  praescientiam  simul."  (The 
essence  of  God's  election  consists  in  His  purpose,  foreknowledge, 
and  foreordination.  The  purpose  is  the  will  of  God  that  whoever 
believes  in  His  Son  (i.  e.  perseveringly  or  unto  the  end)  shall  have 
eternal  life.  Foreknowledge  consists  in  that  from  eternity  He 
foresaw  the  single  individuals  who  would  believe  in  Christ.  Fore- 
ordination, predestination  itself,  consists  in  this  that  He  has  given 
them  eternal  life. — Election  has  taken  place  according  to  God's 
purpose  and  foreknowledge  simultaneously.)  "Compare  Eph. 
1,  5.  1)  with  1  Peter  1,  1,  2."  (P.  324  sq.)  "Surely,  the  purpose  of 
the  Triune  God  concerning  our  salvation,  although  the  entire 
human  race  is  viewed  and  embraced  and  blessed  in  Christ,  can 
be  referred  only  to  the  elect  in  its  execution,  because  they  alone 
persevere  unto  the  end,  of  them  alone  it  was  known  before  all 
time,  them  alone  He  created  thereto,  called  and  predestinated 
from  eternity;  so  that  God,  proposing  to  save  through  faith  (as  the 
only  possible  and  conceivable  form  of  apprehension),  at  the  same 
time  resolved  to  realize  this  in  the  elect,  of  whom  He  foresaw 
what  was  still  in  the  future;  wherefore  the  Scriptures  refer  to 
them  alone  the  purpose  as  being  embraced  in  the  wider  idea 
of  the  will  (compare  Eph.  1,  especially  11;  3,  11;  Rom.  8,  22; 
2  Tim.  1,  9).  Yet  from  all  this  it  does  not  follow  that  in  its  real 
foundation  predestination  dare  be  extended,  as  an  eternal  act  of 
omnipotence  ruling  above  grace  and  determining  it  absolutely, 
equally  to  foreknown  condemning  unbelief;  so  that  the  character 
of  the  universal  decree  to  save  mankind  through  the  gift  of  faith 
would  be  injured,  and  knowing  and  willing  and  working  would  be 
the  same  thing;  or  that  He  knew  only  what  He  wills.  Specula- 
tion concerning  God  and  the  mysteries  of  His  being  has  nothing 
to  do  at  all  with  the  revealed  way  of  salvation."  (P.  325.)  "The 
antecedent  will,  the  gracious,  sincere  desire  that  none  may  be  lost, 
Ezek.  18,  23,  has  the  universality  of  the  reconciliation  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  of  the  divine  call  of  grace  ...  as  its  immediate  result; 
but  since  the  subsequent  will,  John  6,  39,  conditions  this  will  by 


58  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

that  of,  the  creature,  not  in  any  synergistic  sense,  unless  a  gratia 
irresistibihs  is  to  be  maintained,  upon  what  then  does  this  as- 
surance rest,  that  the  reahzation  of  the  divine  purpose  can  by  no 
means  be  overthrown?  It  rests  upon  the  eternal  purpose  of  God 
to  predestinate  those  who  were  foreseen  in  their  persevering  faith; 
as  it  is  certain,  that  if  God  had  not  foreknown  that  not  all  men 
(and  angels)  would  be  lost,  their  creation  would  not  have  taken 
place."  (P.  329.)  "The  theologians  of  Dort  place  .the  chief  pre- 
destining cause  of  the  damnation  as  well  as  of  the  salvation  of 
those  born  now  in  a  sinful  condition,  absolutely  in  God  and  in  His 
beneplacitum  absolutum"  (absolute  pleasure),  "without  basing 
election  with  the  Lutherans  upon  the  foresight  of  persevering 
faith,  i.  e.  conditioning  the  former  in  God  upon  the  latter."  (P. 
354.)  "The  point  of  view  from  which  the  matter  is  regarded  is  in- 
deed different,  when  foresight,  is  derived  from  foreordination  in 
the  eternal  decree;  and  it  is  an  abomination,  when  in  addition 
blasphemous  and  wholly  onesided  conclusions  are  drawn.  It  is 
far  more  in  accord  with  the  Word  of  Biblical  Revelation,  which 
condescends  to  our  human  powers  of  apprehension,  to  follow  in 
their  mode  of  teaching  the  Lutheran  dogmaticians,  especially  after 
the  opposite  type  of  doctrine,  had  deteriorated  into  heresy  and  had 
been  developed  and  established  and  accepted  generally;  namely,. 
to  consider  knowledge  apart  from  will,  and  connecting  pre- 
destination with  prescience,  condition  the  former  upon  the  latter. 
But  all  such  anthropopathies  must  be  limited  by  the  necessary 
unitas  et  simplicitas  essentias  divin^e"  (unity  and  simplicity  of 
the  divine  essence),  "which  is  likewise  clearly  taught  by  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  excludes  any  real  contradiction  within  the  active  eternal 
Power  itself."  ("Lehre  und  Wehre."  Vol.  III.,  p.  18.)  "We  too 
now  are  ....  certain,  that  we  are  free,  i.  e.  that  we  have  that 
which  determines  our  will  in  ourselves,  without  experiencing 
either  inwardly  or  outw^ardly  any  compulsion  or  determining  in- 
fluence in  such  a  manner  as  to  render  the  effect  inevitable."  (P. 
23.)  "Left  to  himself  man  has  only  the  imagination  of  the  carnal 
heart,  a  hostility  to  the  law.  Through  the  preaching  of  the  law 
this  sinfulness,  although  he  still  loves  and  is  fettered  by  it,  appears 
to  him  in  all  its  terrible  reality,  with  all  its  unhappy  results.  And 
by  a  strange  contrast  at  the  same  time  bitter  slavish  fear  is  the 
consequence.  The  point  now  upon  which  everything  depends 
is  the  resistance  of  such  a  soul  by  nature  in  its  personal  desires 
against  the  spiritual  influence  of  the  Gospel  and  the  strength  of 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       59 

its  motives.  These  positively  enkindle  in  the  terrified  heart,  by 
presenting  to  it  its  true  objects  as  originally  appointed,  a  new 
desire  for  them,  a  desire  which  may  easily  become  a  spiritual 
longing  and  may  turn  the  power  of  free  choice  strongly,  although 
not  with  determining  compulsion,  toward  the  good  with  a  favor- 
able inclination.  Grace  in  this  way  would  break  the  strength  of 
the  inborn  slothfulness,  disinclination,  and  total  unfitness  regard- 
ing the  good,  and  works  upon  the  afifections  of  man  and  the  voli- 
tion proceeding  therefrom,  just  as  does  the  serpent-seed  of  evil 
implanted  in  him.  At  this  instant  now  he  is  free,  which  he  was 
not  before.  If  his  resistance,  however,  especially  by  holding  fast 
seductive  impressions  received  perhaps  long  before  and  due  also 
to  what  is  commonly  called  the  false  wisdom  of  the  world,  is  in- 
tentionally, pertinaciously,  and  continually  renewed  and  thereby 
more  and  more  increased,  then  the  Holy  Spirit  turns  away  from 
him.  ...  On  the  other  hand,  the  renewal  of  the  spiritual  nature 
of  the  personality  in  its  cognitive  and  voluntative  powers  proceeds 
in  those  who  come  to  faith,  not  because  God  is  stronger  than  the 
creature,  but  because  He  works  in  the  stages  appointed  hereto 
from  eternity,  only  by  inclining,  not  by  determinating,  and  thus 
calls  forth  man's  self-determination  (Selbstbestimmung)  directed 
to  the  attainment  of  salvation,  and  renews  the  lost  freedom  by 
awakening  a  good  will  opposed  to  that  which  is  natural  evil.  And 
to  him  who  now  has  not  assumed  voluntarily  the  higher  degree  of 
evil  will  for  the  rejection  of  the  good.  He  offers,  by  the  same  out- 
ward means  and  by  the  inner  activity  effective  through  them, 
gradually,  and  at  times  also  rapidly,  the  victory  in  the  struggle 
against  the  natural  obstinacy  or  disinclination,  and  preserves 
this  henceforth  in  increasing  faithfulness.  ...  If  at  first  there 
results  no  decision,  yet  man  can  never  be  conceived  as  without 
impulses,  which  then  act  of  themselves  within  him,  if  only  the 
motives  of  the  one  or  the  other  are  strong  enough.  And  this  we 
have  called  natural  resistance  in  distinction  from  the  divine  grace 
offered  for  overcoming  these  impulses  and  likewise  working 
powerfully  upon  them.  If  in  the  hour  of  temptation  the  power  of 
choice  inclines  anew  to  favor  untruth,  to  keep  and  hold  fast  the 
evil  tendency,  determined  not  to  be  converted,  then  this  is  the 
plainest  possible  proof  that  the  sinner  is  not  stone  or  wood  or  a 
mere  machine,  nor  has  sunken  by  the  fall  to  the  level  of  the  brute, 
else  no  Word  would  be  needed  for  his  conversion.  His  rational 
free  will  has  retained  the  ability  of  withstanding  the  greatest  meas- 


•60  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

ure  of  the  spiritual  gift.  Compared  with  this  activity,  belonging 
entirely  to  fallen  men,  the  incipient  receptive  and  passive  conduct 
of  the  man  coming  to  faith,  induced  by  the  spiritual  inclination 
•of  the  will  unto  the  good,  is  already  more  than  an  inactive  indiffer- 
ent wavering  midway,  it  is  already  an  opposition  to  the  activity 
for  evil;  and  the  libertas  sese  convertendi"  (liberty  to  convert 
oneself)  "is  likewise  not  at  all  dependent  on  the  creature  as  such, 
but  purely  and  exclusively  on  the  power  of  the  divine  motives  in 
the  Gospel,  which  bring  the  true  objects  of  the  deepest  human 
longing  by  supernatural  influence,  in  a  living,  powerful,  certain 
manner,  to  man's  consciousness.  Never  now  can  the  painful 
memory  of  our  sinfulness  hitherto  be  separated  from  the  thought 
that  we  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God ;  and  because  the  law  and 
the  word  of  promise  work  upon  us  in  undivided  apostolic  and 
prophetic  proclamation,  never  can  this  memory  be  separated  from 
the  effort  to  take  that  path  which  will  remove  this  lamentable 
alienation.  And  this  path  is  the  certain  confidence  of  the  heart 
trusting  in  Him  who  knew  no  sin  and  was  made  sin  and  right- 
eousness for  us.  Thus,  indeed,  the  heart  itself  for  the  moment 
steps  between  a  power  of  sinlessness  on  the  one  side,  which  in 
consequence  of  the  reconciliation  and  forgiveness  obtained 
through  Christ  is  to  become  its  treasure  and  is  to  occupy  it,  and  a 
power  of  sin  on  the  other  side,  which  still  permeates  nature  and 
would  draw  it  out  of  its  already  changed  position — steps  between 
Christ  and  Belial,  between  the  old  and  the  new  birth ;  but  the  heart 
is  brought  to  this  and  receives  this  disposition  by  the  drawing  of 
the  Father  unto  the  Son,  i.  e.  by  the  warning  and  convincing  voice 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  who  efficaciously  offers  peace  to  the  conscience 
and  seeks  again  to  dwell  in  the  heart ;  and  this  to  the  purpose  that 
it  may  not  give  heed  to  the  motives  of  the  flesh  which  are  weaker 
tlian  the  Spirit's  voice — although  many  still  give  such  heed — and 
that  it  may  finally  turn  the  scale  by  bringing  the  will,  still  waver- 
ing in  both  directions,  to  a  decision.  Whatever  the  decisions 
now  are  they  mutually  exclude  each  other.  Neutrality,  except 
in  these  momentary  decisions,  is  inconceivable ;  for  no  life  is  pos- 
sible without  them.  By  the  frequent  repetition  of  one  of  these 
decisions  the  power  inducing  it  gains  control ;  hence  it  may  easily 
happen  to  those  brought  into  saving  and  living  communion  with 
Christ  that  they  again  lose  their  own  stronghold,  viz:  the  state 
of  grace  they  have  attained."  (P.  167  sqq.)  "The  refractoriness 
-of  one  spiritually  dead  can  indeed  never  be  stronger  than  the 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       61 

power  of  Him  who  in  the  first  place  gives  life  to  all;  and  most 
certainly  not  in  one  who  has  been  brought  b}'  the  law  to  a  knowl- 
edge of  his  powerlessness  and  indigence,  wherein  it  was  indeed 
God's  intention  to  make  it  easier  for  him  not  to  enter  in  its  wicked 
depth  a  purposely  and  wilfully  nourished  resistance.  Yet  God 
would  not  degrade  his  noble  intellectual  creature,  man,  and  make 
of  him  a  mere  machine;  therefore,  His  grace  is  not  unfrus- 
table  as  His  power  could  indeed  be.  It  awakens,  it  draws, 
it  loosens,  it  renews,  not  with  the  necessity  of  nature,  but 
according  to  the  powers  created  in  man  which  receive  their 
impulse  and  inclination  toward  God  through  the  motives 
supernaturally  imparted  by  Him;  so  that  the  act  of  con- 
senting is  an  essential  result  of  the  reception  of  preveur 
lent  grace,  this  reception  being  passive  under  the  divine  in- 
fluence." (P.  197.)  "It  is  impossible  to  escape  the  hand  of  God 
knocking  first  at  the  door;  but  when  He  would  open  it.  He  can 
permit  Himself  to  be  turned  away."    (P.  198.) 

The  reader  sees  from  the  above  extracts  that  this  article  of 
Rev.  Fiirbringer  enters  thoroughly  into  nearly  all  the  questions 
discussed  in  the  present  predestination  controversy.  If  Missouri 
had  abided  by  the  doctrine  taught  in  this  article,  which  in  its  view 
and  treatment  of  the  subject  agrees  with  the  doctrine  of  the  old 
Lutheran  dogmaticians,  the  controversy  on  predestination  and 
conversion,  which  even  as  yet  is  not  ended,  would  never  have 
arisen.  It  must  be  remarked  that  this  article  was  published  by  Dr. 
Walther  in  "Lehre  und  Wehre"  without  the  slightest  mark  of  dis- 
sent or  doubt,  thus  receiving  his  complete  editorial  approval. 
Nor  was  it  disapproved  later  on  either  by  the  author  or  by  Dr. 
Walther  before  the  Chicago  Conference  in  the  autumn  of  1880. 

There  are  no  statements  or  discussions  concerning  pre- 
destination or  related  matters  by  Dr.  Walther  himself  in  the  first 
volumes  of  "Lehre  und  Wehre,"  but  we  have  from  his  pen  in 
"Lehre  und  Wehre"  as  well  as  in  the  "Lutheraner,"  the 
most  unqualified  recommendations  of  the  reprinted  works  of  our 
old  theologians  who  teach  distinctly  the  doctrine  of  our  old  dog- 
maticians as  reproduced  in  Rev.  Fiirbringer's  article.  The  most 
noteworthy  instance  of  this  sort  is  found  in  Vol.  III.  of  "Lehre 
und  Wehre,"  p.  42,  etc.,  where  Dr.  Walther  writes  in  his  long  ar- 
ticle, "Lutherisch-theologische  Pfarrers-Bibliothek"  (Lutheran 
Theological  Ministers'  Library),  as  follows: 

"A  minister  is  often  in  need  of  a  book  to  put  into  the  hands 


62  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

of  his  hearers,  so  that  they  may  learn  the  difference  between  the 
Evangehcal  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches.  There  are  not  a 
few  works  serving  this  purpose.  The  best  old  work  of  this  kind 
is,  in  our  judgment,  "Kurzer  Bericht  von  dem  Unterschied  der 
Wahren  Evangelischen  Lutherischen  und  der  Reformierten 
Lehre"  (Brief  Account  of  the  Difference  Between  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Doctrine),  by  Dr.  Hektor  Gottfried 
Masius,  Copenhagen,  1691."  (Reprinted  also  later,  for  instance 
in  1843  by  the  publisher,  G.  W.  Niemeyer,  in  Hamburg.)  "This 
little  book  is  to  be  preferred  to  many  others  of  its  sort  on  account 
of  its  mild  and  earnest  spirit  of  speaking  the  truth  in  love,  as  also 
on  account  of  its  clearness  and  thoroughness  of  argumentation." 
And  now  what  does  Masius  teach  concerning  predestination? 
Precisely  what  our  old  dogmaticians  teach  and,  following  them, 
what  Rev.  Fiirbringer  teaches.  For  instance:  "God  does  not 
will  man's  salvation  absolutely  (bloss  hin),  but  conditionally,  and 
in  the  order  of  certain  means;  and  because  most  men  reject  these 
means,  can  God  therefore  be  accused  of  mutability?"  (Chap. 
2,  Quest.  4,  p.  41  of  the  Hamburg  edition.)  "God,  according  to 
His  antecedent  will,  has  had  compasion  on  all  men,  whether  they 
be  elect  or  reprobate.  But  the  fact  that,  according  to  His  subse- 
quent will  He  had  compassion  not  upon  all,  or  did  not  elect  all, 
is  due  to  this  that  all  do  not  follow  His  antecedent  will  and  believe 
in  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God  to  the  end."  (Ibid.,  p.  42.)  "That 
God  has  elected  a  few  according  to  His  mere  will  and  pleasure 
without  regarding  faith  grounded  in  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ,  is 
the  regular  doctrine  of  all  those  Reformed  who  adhere  to 
their  symbolic  books  and  accept  the  decrees  of  the  Synod 
of  Dort.  Although  a  few  admit  that  election  did  not  take 
place  without  all  regard  to  the  merit  of  Christ  and  to  faith,  yet  they 
do  not  mean  that  God  from  eternity  elected  those  of  whom  He 
foresaw  that  they  would  believe  and  accept  Christ's  merit,  but  that 
He  elected  some  few  according  to  His  mere  absolute  will  in  order 
that  they  might  believe  in  time.  Hence  faith  is  not  regarded  by 
them  as  a  cause  or  condition  of  election,  but  as  a  necessary  effect 
of  election.  See  concerning  this  the  Synod,  of  Dort,  p.  342,  524. 
Molinaus  says  in  the  Synod.  Dordrac.  Sess.  141,  p.  396,  in  so 
many  words:  I  acknowledge  no  election  in  view  of  faith,  whether 
faith  be  taken  as  a  cause  of  election  or  as  an  antecedent  condition. 
God  did  not  elect  us  because  we  believe,  but  that  we  might  be- 
lieve.    Massonius  part.  I,  c.  42,  p.  1514.     Because  faith  is  God's 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       63 

gift  He  did  not  foresee  it  and  direct  His  election  to  it."  (P.  64.) 
This  then  is  Reformed  doctrine  and  assertion,  which  Masius  re- 
jects with  the  declared  approval  of  Dr.  Walther.  "The  following  is 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  according  to  the  Scriptures,  viz :  That  God 
indeed  has  compassion  on  all  men;  that  Christ  also  died  for  all; 
that  the  means  of  grace,  too,  are  ofifered  to  all  men;  but  that  God 
also  foresaw  who  would  believe  in  Christ  and  continue  in  such 
faith  unto  the  end,  and  these  He  resolved  to  save  for  Christ's  sake; 
and  these  are  they  whom  the  Scriptures  call  the  elect."  (P.  65  sq.) 
"God  has  elected  no  one  from  eternity  save  him  of  whom  He  fore- 
saw that  he  would  continually  believe  to  the  end.  You  say :  But 
man  cannot  believe  of  himself;  God  must  give  him  faith.  I  an- 
swer: This  is  true,  and  therefore  God  also  gives  the  means  of 
faith;  but  man  can  reject  such  means  and  resist  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  is  unfortunately  the  case  with  many."  (P.  69.)  "Although  faith 
did  not  yet  actually  exist,  still  in  the  foresight  of  God  it  existed; 
hence  Peter  says  that  we  are  elected  according  to  the  foreknowl- 
edge of  God,  1  Pet.  1,  2.  As  the  elect  themselves  did  not 
exist  when  God  elected  them  before  the  foundation  of  the  world 
was  laid,  thus,  too,  their  faith  did  not  yet  exist.  But  they  them- 
selves as  well  as  their  faith  existed  to  the  eyes  of  God's  foresight." 
(P.  71  sq.)  "If  we  would  teach  that  in  election  God  looked  to 
our  works  and  merit  as  a  meritorious  cause,  the  objection" 
(namely,  that  according  to  Lutheran  doctrine  man  chose  Christ, 
in  contradiction  to  John  15,  16)  "might  have  some  semblance  of 
reason.  But  as  faith  is  not  our  work  nor  our  merit,  but  God's  gift, 
therefore  all  the  glory  of  election  is  our  God's  alone,  who  has  ap- 
pointed us  unto  adoption  by  grace.  And  as  we  have  nothing  to 
boast  of  in  justification  when  God  saves  us  through  faith,  as  though 
we  preferred  ourselves,  so  also  all  our  glory  vanishes  although 
God  in  election  looked  to  our  faith ;  for  faith  does  not  rest  upon 
ourselves,  but  upon  Christ's  merits."    (P.  73.) 

This  is  what  we  read  in  a  little  volume  which,  according  to 
Dr.  Walther's  unqualified  recommendation,  is  entirely  suitable  to 
be  put  into  the  hands  of  church  members,  "so  that  they  may  learn 
the  difference  between  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  and  the  Re- 
formed Churches,"  since  it  is  a  book  characterized  by  "its  mild  and 
serious  spirit  of  speaking  the  truth  in  love,"  and  by  "its  clearness 
and  thoroughness  of  argumentation." 

In  a  similar  manner,  without  the  slightest  qualification  or  ex- 
ception, Dr.  Walther  recommended  also  the  following  works  con- 


64  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

taining  in  clear  statements  the  doctrine  of  predestination  held 
by  our  old  dogmaticians:  Lassenius,  "82  Trostreden"  (82  Con- 
solatory Discourses),  republished  by  a  church  member  in  St. 
Louis  and  "selected  and  arranged"  by  Dr.  Walther  himself,  the 
"entire  contents"  of  which  are  "from  the  pure  and  unadulterated 
Word  of  God"  (on  p.  157  of  this  work  we  read  for  instance:  "God 
has  also  not  elected  us  that  we  should  believe  but  because 
He  foresaw  that  we  would  believe"),  and  the  Weimarische 
Bibel,  in  which  "the  reader"  is  said  to  have  "an  exposition 
through  and  through  according  to  the  faith,  in  doctrine  pure  as 
gold"  (in  Rom.  8,  29.  and  in  1  Pet.  1,  2.  this  Bible  explains  "fore- 
known" and  "foreknowledge"  by:  "Foreseen  that  they  would 
believe";  and  2  Thess.  2,  13:  "That  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  Word 
of  the  Gospel  called  you  to  Christ's  kingdom,  and  wrought  true 
faith  in  Christ  in  your  hearts,  and  thereby  regenerated,  renewed, 
and  sanctified  you;  and  because  God  the  Lord  was  conscious 
from  eternity  of  this  work  of  grace  in  you,  Acts  15,  18,  therefore 
He  has  also  elected  you  from  eternity  in  such  sanctification  of  the 
Spirit  and  in  such  true  faith  in  Christ").  In  the  same  way  Dieter- 
ich's  Exposition  of  the  Catechism,  adapted  by  Dr.  Walther  himself 
and  still  used  without  change  in  the  Missouri  Synod  in  spite  of  the 
protests  of  honest  fanatics,  contains  in  cjuestions  321-328,  accord- 
ing to  the  form  of  the  words,  as  well  as  according  to  the  author's 
meaning,  the  doctrine  of  our  old  dogmaticians  on  predestination. 
For  instance,  question  321  reads:  Election  "is  that  act  of  God 
by  which  He  determined  according  to  the  purpose  of  His  will, 
out  of  pure  grace  and  mercy  in  Christ,  to  save  all  those  who  shall 
perseveringly  believe  in  Christ,  for  the  praise  of  His  glorious 
grace."  Question  325:  "Why  is  it  that  not  all  men  for  whom 
these  means  of  salvation  are  appointed  are  equally  elected  to 
eternal  life?  This  is  because  God  has  determined  to  elect  them 
not  absolutely  and  unconditionally,  but  with  this  condition  and  in 
this  order,  that  they  believe  in  Christ  through  the  Gospel  and 
be  §aved  through  true  faith  in  Him.  But  because  most  men  do 
not  believe,  it  naturally  follows  that  those  alone  who  perseveringly 
believe  in  Christ,  and  consequently  only  a  few,  are  elected."  (The 
decisive  and  conclusive  regard  to  faith  in  election  can  scarcely  be 
expressed  more  tersely.)  Question  326:  "But  whence  is  it  that 
not  in  all  faith  is  produced  by  the  Gospel  and  they  then  believe  in 
Christ?    It  is  through  their  own  fault,  because  they  of  their  own 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       65 

volition  despise  and  reject  the  preached  Word,  and  thus  in  a 
manifold  way  resist  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

In  "Einige  Bemerkungen  iiber  eine  neue  Apologie  der 
Reformierten  Kirche"  (A  few  remarks  on  a  New  Apology  of  the 
Reformed  Church— "Lehre  und  Wehre,"  Oct.,  18G3)  Dr.  Walther 
expresses  himself,  quoting  also  with  approbation  statements  of 
Joh.  Gerhard  (who,  by  the  way,  held  as  fast  to  and  correctly  un- 
derstood an  election  in  view  of  faith  as  did  any  teacher  of  our 
Church),  as  follows:  "There  is  accordingly  a  great  difference  be- 
tween saying  God  has  elected  those  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they 
would  believe  and  continue  in  faith,  and  saying:  God  has  elected 
some  because  He  foresaw  that  they  would  believe  and  continue 
in  faith,  or  for  the  sake  of  their  faith.  The  former  is  altogether 
correct  according  to  Rom.  8,  29,  the  latter  is  Pelagian."  (P.  300.) 
This,  as  well  as  a  few  other  things  in  the  article,  sounds  indeed 
already  like  a  turning  toward  Calvinism;  yet  it  can  be  ac- 
cepted when  the  "because"  is  taken  with  Dr.  Walther  in  the  sense 
of  "for  the  sake  of"  (um  willen),  in  which  sense,  by  the  way,  as 
far  as  we  know,  not  one  of  our  old  dogmaticians  or  other  theo- 
logians has  taken  it.  Evidently,  however.  Dr.  Walther  here  still 
understood  Rom.  8,  29,  as  they  did.  At  about  the  same  time  he 
still  dictated  to  his  students  these  words  from  Quenstedt:  "False 
doctrine  of  the  Calvinists  who  tear  faith  out  of  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion and  say,  faith  belongs  to  election  not  antecedently,  but  subse- 
quently, not  to  the  election  itself,  but  to  its  execution.  Those  of 
Dort  say:  Election  is  not  out  of  the  foresight  of  faith,  but  is  unto 
faith." 

In  June  of  the  year  1868  the  Northern  District  of  the  Mis- 
souri Synod  was  assembled  in  Milwaukee,  and  Dr.  Walther  was 
also  present,  being  at  the  time  President  of  the  entire  Synod,  and 
of  course,  as  always,  the  real  leader,  especially  in  the  doctrinal 
discussions.  "Twenty. four  Theses  concerning  the  doctrine  of 
good  works  on  the  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  free  will,  election  and 
justification"  were  presented  by  Rev.  J.  A.  Hiigli,  in  which  clearly 
an  election  unto  faith  was  taught,  and  the  doctrine  of  our  old 
dogmaticians  was  judged  as  follows:  "In  God  there  are  (fallen) 
no  conditions;  yet  conditions  are  claimed  for  God  when  it  is  said 
that  He  elected  in  view  of  faith"  (p.  24).  "The  question,  in  what 
respect  it  would  be  Pelagian  to  consider  faith  as  the  middle  link, 
so  that  the  motive  in  election  would  not  be  faith  in  itself,  but 
Christ  and  His  merit  apprehended  by  faith?  was  answered  as  fol- 


66  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

lows:  Faith  is  indeed  the  middle  link;  but  when  it  is  said  that 
God  elected  in  view  of  faith,  then  faith  is  not  the  middle  link,  but 
a  condition.  And  however  sharply  we  may  distinguish,  a  certain 
causality  will  still  be  ascribed  to  faith.  But  we  find  no  state- 
ment in  the  Scriptures  saying  that  we  are  saved  for  the  sake  of 
faith.  Faith  is  a  means,  not  a  cause.  Christ  is  the  foundation  of 
our  salvation,  even  when  He  is  not  apprehended  by  faith."  (P. 
25.)  Accordingly,  the  expression,  "God  has  elected  intuitu  fidei, 
in  view  of  faith",  v/as  declared  to  be  an  "unfortunate  terminology" 
chosen  "because  of  the  Calvinists."  Luther's  book,  De  Servo 
Arbitrio,  is  quoted  with  approbation  also  in  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination, and  declared  to  be  a  "glorious  testimony"  by  the  side 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord  (p.  26),  although  this  last  Confession  of 
our  Church  refrains  with  significant  silence  from  mentioning  at 
all  this  book  of  Luther  in  the  article  of  predestination.  This 
synodical  Report  of  1868  stands  as  a  wliole  on  the  same  plane  with 
the  Report  of  the  Western  District  of  1877,  which  will  be  con- 
sidered later,  also  as  regards  its  unhappy  attempts  at  separating 
the  form  of  expression  of  our  old  dogmaticians  from  their  doc- 
trine, and  at  uniting  this  doctrine  with  Calvinistic  views;  only 
this  Report  is  much  briefer  and  therefore  does  not  treat  the  sub- 
ject so  fully,  and  consequently  did  not  produce  the  sensation 
caused  by  the  Report  of  1877.  "Lehre  and  Wehre"  then  too 
brought  an  article  in  the  October  number  of  the  same  year, 
about  three  months  after  the  synodical  meeting  at  Milwaukee, 
by  Dr.  Sihler  on  the  perniciousness  of  the  Reformed  doctrine  of 
predestination,  in  which  the  writer,  after  the  manner  of  our  dog- 
maticians, made  a  distinction  between  an  antecedent  and  a  sub- 
sequent will  of  God,  and  then  continued  thus:  "As  God,  how- 
ever, according  to  the  purpose  of  His  will,  out  of  pure  grace, 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  resolved  to  save  those  eter- 
nally whose  persevering  faith  in  Christ  He  foresaw  from  eternity 
and  wrought  in  time  through  the  Gospel:  so  also,  according  to 
His  righteousness.  He  resolved  before  all  time  to  reject  and  con- 
demn in  eternity  those  whose  unbelief  against  Christ  He  foresaw 
by  virtue  of  His  omniscience,  and  who  in  time  either  from  the 
outset  withstood  the  influence  of  His  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Gospel 
by  wicked  unbelief,  or  believed  only  for  a  time  and  after  that  by 
wilful  sin  cast  aside  their  faith  and  good  conscience,  and  adhered 
to  this  rejection  of  Christ  in  opposition  to  all  the  work  of  convert- 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Sj'nod.       67 

ing  grace."  This  is  clearly  and  distinctly  an  election  in  view  of 
faith. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Northern  District  in  the  year  1871,  at 
which  Dr.  Walther  was  not  present,  these  theses  of  Rev.  Hiigli 
were  again  taken  up.  Among  the  "Added  remarks  to  thesis  5" 
we  find  the  following:  "Election  is  the  cause  of  all  that  takes  place 
for  the  salvation  of  the  elect;  it  is  the  cause  that  any  one  conies  to 
repentance;  it  is  also  the  cause,  when  one  who  has  fallen  away 
returns  unto  repentance."  (P.  16.)  "As  far  as  temporary  faith  is 
concerned,  it  is  indeed  a  result  of  the  grace  of  God  through  the 
Word,  but  not  of  election.  Election  is  the  cause  only  of  the  faith 
of  the  elect;  therefore,  an  elect  person  believes  either  unto  the 
end,  or,  if  he  falls  from  faith,  he  returns  to  faith  before  his  end." 
(P.  17.) 

The  declaration  of  the  Northern  District  of  the  year  1868, 
quoted  above,  asserting  that  even  this  already  is  "Pelagianism" 
to  teach,  as  our  old  dogmaticians,  Hunnius,  Hutter,  Gerhard,  etc., 
do  outspokenly  with  the  brief  expression  "in  view  of  faith,"  that 
God  elected  in  view  of  Christ's  merits  apprehended  by  faith,  was 
finally  attacked  by  Prof.  G.  Fritschel  in  Brobst's  "Theolog.  Mo- 
natshefte",  Jan.,  1872,  and  this  with  justice,  as  a  "gross  insult  to 
the  Lutheran  Church."  Dr.  Walther  replied  to  this  in  "Lehre 
und  Wehre",  in  May  of  the  same  year,  and  did  this  in  the  same 
contemptuous,  uncharitable,  and  unscrupulous  manner  in  which, 
especially  in  the  latter  half  of  his  life,  he  treated  all  those  who  per- 
sisted in  their  opposition  to  his  views.  In  the  most  offensive 
terms  he  repels  Prof.  Fritschel's  accusation  as,  "to  say  nothing 
worse,  simply  a  gross  perversion,  an  open  falsehood" :  nothing  of 
the  kind,  he  claims,  had  been  asserted!  And  how  did  he  try  to 
prove  this?  By  referring  to  entirely  different  and  correct  sen- 
tences found  in  the  same  Report  beside  the  others,  as  in  the  Report 
of  1877,  and  by  referring  to  his  own  explanation,  quoted  above,  in 
"Lehre  und  Wehre"  in  Oct.,  1863!  But  he  does  not  say  explicitly 
w4iether  he  will  withdraw,  as  an  "inconvenient  expression",  the 
sentence  especially  attacked  by  Prof.  Fritschel.  It  is  especially 
important  for  us  here,  that  he  even  then  yet  acknowledged  that 
explanation  of  his,  and  added :  "Our  Synod  confesses  most  posi- 
tively that  the  theologians  of  our  Church,  also  in  the  17th  century, 
taught  the  correct  doctrine  of  predestination  and  defended  it 
against  the  Calvinists;  only  this  one  thing  does  our  Synod  find 
fault  with  in  the  doctrinal  presentation  of  the  former  on  this  point, 


68  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

that  the  expression,  'God  has  elected  intuitu  fidei'  is  an  'unhappily 
chosen  terminology.' "  In  the  following  numbers  of  "Lehre  und 
Wehre"  (July — Dec,  1872)  he  then,  with  the  skillful  generalship 
he  always  displayed,  transferred  the  battle  into  the  territory  of  his 
opponent  by  attacking  Prof.  Fritschel's  assertion,  which  in  itself 
may  be  misunderstood,  which  he,  however,  had  correctly 
explained,  viz:  "The  fact  that  in  the  case  of  two  men  who  hear  the 
Gospel  resistance  and  death  is  taken  away  for  the  one  but  not  for 
the  other,  finds  its  explanation  in  man's  free  self-determination, 
although  this  itself  is  first  made  possible  by  grace."  (Compare 
Rev.   Fiirbringer's  exposition  on  this  point  as  quoted  above.) 


IIL 


THE   DOCTRINE  OF   PREDESTINATION   IN  THE 
MISSOURI   SYNOD. 


B.    THE   SYNODICAL  REPORT   OF  THE   WESTERN   DISTRICT   FOR  THE 

YEAR   1877. 

In  the  autumn  of  1877  the  Western  District  of  the  Missouri 
Synod  met  in  Altenburg,  Perry  Co.,  Mo.  The  subject  for  the 
doctrinal  discussion,  to  which  beside  the  morning-  sessions  two 
afternoon  sessions  were  devoted,  consisted  of  6  theses,  furnished, 
elaborated,  and  defended  by  Dr.  Walther  himself,  the  proposition 
being:  "Auch  in  ihrer  Lehre  von  der  Gnadenwahl  giebt  die  evan- 
gelisch-lutherische  Kirche  Gott  allein  die  Ehre"  (Also  in  the 
Doctrine  of  Election  our  Evangel.  Lutheran  Church  Gives  all 
Glory  to  God  Alone).  Five  of  these  theses  were  discussed  and 
adopted.  The  greater  part  of  the  time  was  devoted  to  the  first 
three,  and  these  are  the  most  important  also  for  us.  The  theseist 
says:  "The  language  of  these  theses  is  purposely  taken  from  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  so  that  every  one  may  know  that  no  new 
doctrine  is  to  be  presented  here,  but  that  only  the  doctrine  of  our 
Confessions  is  to  be  repeated."  This  assertion,  however,  does  not 
yet  prove  that  the  passages  quoted  from  the  Confession  are  cor- 
rectly understood  and  interpreted.  Indeed,  all  the  sects  cite 
Scripture  passages  in  favor  of  their  peculiar  false  doctrines,  and 
yet  are  not  able  to  prove  thereby  that  their  doctrine  is  right  and 
scriptural. 

Thesis  1  reads  as  follows:  "It"  (the  Ev.  Luth.  Church) 
"teaches  according  to  God's  Word  'that  God  was  so  solicitous 
concerning  the  conversion,  righteousness,  and  salvation  of  every 
Christian,  and  so  faithfully  provided  therefor,  that  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  was  laid  He  deliberated  concerning  it, 
and  in  His  purpose  ordained  how  He  would  bring  me  thereto 
and  preserve  me  therein.  Also,  that  He  wished  to  secure  my  sal- 
vation so  well  and  certainly,  that,  since  through  the  weakness 
and  wickedness  of  our  flesh,  it  could  easily  be  lost  from  our 

(69) 


70  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

hands,  or  through  craft  and  might  of  the  devil  and  the  world  be 
torn  or  removed  therefrom,  in  His  eternal  purpose,  which  cannot 
fail  or  be  overthrown,  He  ordained  it,  and  placed  it,  for  pre- 
servation in  the  almighty  hand  of  our  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  from 
which  no  one  can  pluck  us.'  It  also  teaches  that  'in  His  counsel, 
purpose,  and  ordination  He  prepared  salvation  not  only  in  gen- 
eral, but  in  grace  considered  and  chose  to  salvation  each  and  every 
person  of  the  elect,  who  shall  be  saved  through  Christ,  and  or- 
dained that  in  the  way  just  mentioned  He  would  by  His  grace, 
gifts,  and  eiificacy  bring  them  thereto,  and  aid,  promote,  strengthen 
and  preserve  them'.  (Book  of  Concord,  Jacobs'  Translation'* 
p.  657,  §.  45,  &  p.  653,  §.  23.)  Alatth.  22,  14;  Eph.  1,  4.  11;  Rom. 
8,28-30;    2  Thess.  2,  13." 

This  thesis  evidently  means  to  show  what  election  is,  what 
it  includes  and  embraces.  Hence,  it  is  surprising  that  not  the  full 
statement  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  as  contained  in  the  well- 
known  eight  points,  is  adopted  or  at  least  made  the  basis  for  the 
definition,  but  that  two  other  passages  torn  from  their  connection 
are  adduced,  of  which  one  treats  of  the  '"excellent,  glorious  conso- 
lation" which  "this  doctrine  aflfords  also",  that  is  when  accepted 
and  treated  in  the  sense  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  the  other 
forms  only  a  supplement  and  addition  to  the  eight  points,  of  which 
points  the  Confession  says:  "All  this,  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, is  comprised  in  the  doctrine  concerning  the  eternal  election 
of  God  to  adoption  and  eternal  salvation,  and  should  be  comprised 
with  it,  and  not  omitted,  when  we  speak  of  God's  purpose,  pre- 
destination, election  and  ordination  to  salvation"  Qacobs'  TransL 
p.  653,  §.  24).  Thus,  self-evidently,  the  wrong  foundation  is  laid 
for  the  entire  discussion.  The  Confession  understands  much 
more  by  election  than  this  Report,  and  in  so  far  something  entirely 
different  from  its  conception ;  and  when  now  this  Report  proceeds 
to  apply  to  election  in  its  (narrower)  sense  what  the  Formula  of 
Concord  applies  to  it  in  its  (wider)  sense,  the  whole  result  can 
only  be  confusion  and  error,  even  though  in  certain  cases  some 
correct  things  are  said.  This  is  the  case  already  in  thesis  2.  The 
passage  of  the  Confession  it  contains  applies  only  to  the  election 
taught  by  the  Confession,  and  not  at  all  to  the  mutilated  Missour- 
ian  election.  The  thesis  reads  thus:  'Tt  teaches:  'The  eternal 
election  of  God  not  only  foresees  and  foreknows  the  salvation 


For  Mueller's  edition  we  substitute  Jacobs'  translation. 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       71 

of  the  elect,  but  is  also,  from  the  gracious  will  and  pleasure  of  God 
in  Christ  Jesus,  a  cause  which  procures,  works,  helps,  and  pro- 
motes what  pertains  thereto;  upon  this  also  our  salvation  is  so 
founded  that  the  gates  of  hell  cannot  prevail  against  it  (Matth. 
16,  18).  For  it  is  written  (John  10,  28) :  Neither  shall  any  man 
pluck  my  sheep  out  of  my  hand.  And  again  (Acts  13,  48) :  And 
as  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life,  believed.'  (Jacobs' 
Transl.,  p.  651,  §.8.)  Matth.  24,  24;  Acts  13,  48;  Rom.  8,  33-39; 
Hos.  13,  9."  Compare  with  this  and  also  with  the  following  what 
is  said  above,  p.  39  sqq.,  concerning  the  line  of  thought  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord. 

Thesis  3  reads:  "It  teaches  that  'it  is  false  and  wrong  when 
it  is  taught  that  not  alone  the  mercy  of  God  and  the  most  holy 
merit  of  Christ,  but  also  something  in  us  is  a  cause  of  God's  elec- 
tion, on  account  of  which  God  has  chosen  us  to  eternal  life'  (Js'. 
T.,  p.  665,  §.  88),  Eph.  1,  5.  6;  Rom.  9,  15;  1  Cor.  4,  7;  whether 
this  be  a)  man's  own  work  or  sanctification,  2  Tim.  1,  9 ;  Tit. 
3,  5;  Eph.  2,  8.  9;  Rom.  11,  5.  7;  b)  man's  right  use  of 
the  means  of  grace.  Acts  16,  14;  c)  man's  selfdetermination, 
Phil.  2,  13;  Eph.  2,  1.  5;  d)  man's  longing  and  prayer, 
Rom.  9,  16;  e)  man's  noU'resistance,  Jer.  31,18;  Is.  63,  17;  f) 
'man's  faith,  Rom.  4,  16."  This  thesis,  as  far  as  its  language  goes, 
can  and  must  be  accepted;  its  contents  have  never  been  denied 
either  directly  or  indirectly  by  any  Lutheran  who  taught  an  elec- 
tion in  view  of  faith,  since  no  one  has  held  or  asserted  that  faith, 
or  any  of  the  things  named  in  the  thesis,  is  a  "cause  of  election" 
found  in  us,  "on  account  of  which  God  has  chosen  us  to  eternal 
life."  The  synodical  Report,  however,  puts  something  into  the 
words  of  the  Confession  which  hitherto  no  faithful  teacher  of  our 
Lutheran  Church  had  found  in  them,  namely  the  rejection  of  every 
decisive  regard  of  God  in  election  to  man's  foreseen  faith  or  con- 
duct toward  the  means  of  grace  and  the  Holy  Spirit  working 
through  them. 

When  now  we  proceed  to  the  closer  consideration  of  this  Re- 
port, which  is  extremely  important  as  regards  the  "History  and 
Proper  Estimate"  of  the  "Present  Controversy  on  Predestination", 
we  find  that  in  it,  as  in  the  previously  considered  synodical  Report 
of  the  Northern  District  of  1868  (p.  65  sq.  above),  the  attempt  is 
made  to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  our  old  dogmaticians,  which  ac- 
cords in  all  its  essential  features  with  the  Formula  of  Concord,  by 
the  side  of  the  new  Calvinizing  Missourian  principles,  although 


72  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

here  and  there  fauk  is  found  with  their  mode  of  expression.  Thus 
that  unhappy  mixture  of  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism  is  produced 
which  characterizes  this  Report.  We  will  see  later  on,  that  in  due 
course  of  events  several  of  the  Lutheran  reminiscenses  of  this  Re- 
port most  glaringly  in  contradiction  with  its  Calvinizing  principles, 
were  explicitly  discarded.  These  correct  propositions,  appearing 
like  discordant  elements  in  motley  mixture  among  the  false,  are 
due  to  the  circumstance,  that  in  part  at  least  they  who  uttered  them 
were  not  yet  fully  clear  and  sure  in  the  new  doctrine ;  or  that  they 
did  not  yet  dare  to  come  out  openly;  then  also  in  part,  to  the  fact 
that  the  St.  Louis  theologians,  as  it  appeared  for  instance  at  the 
large  Pastoral  Conference  at  Chicago,  were  not  agreed  among 
themselves.  (Compare  the  author's  pamphlet:  "Worum  handelt 
es  sich  eigentlich  in  dem  gegenwartigen  Lehrstreit  iiber  die 
Gnadenwahl?" — What  is  the  Real  Question  in  the  Present  Con- 
troversy concerning  Predestination? — p.  17). 

Let  us  look  now  at  the  principal  passages  in  which  the  new 
Calvinizing  view  comes  out  clearly. 

In  the  very  beginning  of  the  doctrinal  discussion,  p.  23,  we 
read:  "The  doctrine  of  election  concerns  as  it  were,  the  very 
foundation  (untersten  Grund)  of  the  great,  unsearchable  myster}^ 
of  our  salvation" — a  genuine  Calvinistic  proposition,  in  which 
election  is  declared  to  be,  as  it  were,  the  very  foundation  of  salva- 
tion, namely,  election  in  the  new  Missourian  sense,  hence,  not  in 
so  far  as  it  is  above  all  else  the  institution  of  the  universal  wav  of 
salvation,  but  in  so  far  as  it  is  the  mysterious  election,  uncon- 
ditioned by  any  divine  foreknowledge,  of  particular  individual 
persons  in  preference  to  others  and  passing  by  the  others.  Page 
24  we  read  of  this  same  election :  "Yes,  God  already  from  eternity 
has  elected  a  certain  number  of  men  unto  salvation.  He  has  de- 
creed, that  these  shall  and  must  be  saved;  and  as  surely  as  God  is 
God,  so  surely  also  these  will  be  saved,  and  none  but  these." 
According  to  this  proposition  salvation  depends  for  its  essential 
basis  solely  and  alone  upon  this  secret  eternal  election.  He  who 
is  thus  elected,  without  any  regard  to  his  conduct  over  against  the 
means  of  grace,  shall  and  must  be  saved,  and  no  one  else  will  and 
can  be  saved.  Page  26:  "We  are  to  learn  from  this"  (from  Eph. 
1,  5)  "that  we  are  elected  not  according  to  the  will  of  any  creature, 
or  according  to  our  own  will,  but  according  to  the  will  of  God. 
This  will  of  God,  however,  is  also  itself  not  determined  by  any 
other  will.     Therefore  the  apostle  says:    'according  to  the  good 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       73 

pleasure  of  His  will'.  If  then  we  would  say  to  God :  Why  didst 
Thou  not  elect  me?  He  would  answer:  Because  I  so  willed. 
If  now  we  were  to  ask  further:  Why  then  didst  Thou  so  will? 
He  would  reply:  It  was  simply  the  pleasure  of  my  will.  Indeed, 
God  does  not  allow  us  to  criticize  Him.  We  are  to  know  that  we 
are  in  His  hands.  He  alone  created  us  for  this  temporal  life;  He 
alone,  according  to  His  mere  (puren  blossen)  pleasure,  gives  us 
also  eternal  life."  The  saving  will  of  God,  by  virtue  of  which  He 
has  elected  a  man,  brings  him  to  faith,  keeps  him  in  faith,  and 
leads  him  to  heaven,  is,  according  to  this,  "not  determined  by  any 
other  will,"  i.  e.,  it  is  carried  out  without  any  regard  to  the  will 
of  man.  Nothing,  not  even  the  will  of  man,  can  hinder  this  sav- 
ing will  of  God.  Compare  with  this,  for  instance,  only  the  one 
word  of  Christ,  Matth.  23,  37:  "O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  thou 
that  killest  the  prophets,  and  stonest  them  which  are  sent  unto 
thee,  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  even 
as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would 
not!"  and  the  one  word  of  our  Confession  in  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, Epitome  XL  (Jacobs' Transl.,  p.  526,  §.  12):  "That,  how- 
ever, 'many  are  called,  few  are  chosen',  does  not  mean  that  God 
is  unwilling  that  all  should  be-saved,  but  the  reason  is  that  they 
either  do  not  at  all  hear  God's  Word,  but  wilfully  despise  it,  close 
their  ears  and  harden  their  hearts,  and  in  this  manner  foreclose 
the  ordinary  way  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that  He  cannot  effect  His 
work  in  them,  or,  when  it  is  heard,  they  consider  it  of  no  account, 
and  do  not  heed  it.  For  this  not  God  or  His  election,  but  their 
wickedness,  is  responsible."    . 

Page  27  sq.:  (Rom.8)  "Verse  29  is  often  interpreted  incor- 
rectly. For  it  is  said:  Here  we  read  indeed:  whorn  God  'did 
foreknow.  He  also  did  predestinate';  so  then  He  has  looked  into 
the  future  and  known  in  advance  how  men  would  conduct  them- 
selves, and  has  thought  thus :  Those  of  whom  I  see  that  they  are 
pious  I  will  save;  those  of  whom  I  see  that  they  are  not  pious  I 
will  cast  into  hell.  But  this  would  be  nothing  but  the  universal 
decree  concerning  our  salvation.  Then  there  would  be  no  elec- 
tion at  all.  No;  if  we  compare  the  Scripture  passages  .which 
speak  of  God's  knowing  and  recognizing  His  own,we  see  that  this 
expression  means  nothing  but  this,  that  He  loves  them ;  that  He 
has  chosen,  elected,  received  them  as  His  own,  and  acknowledged 
them  as  His  loved  ones  .  .  .  Compare  also  1  Pet.  1,  2;  Rom.  11, 
2 ;  &  2  Tim.  2, 19 ;  where  throughout  the  word  used  in  our  passage. 


74  The  Prcsc7it   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

yiyvuxTy.zv^,  is  taken  to  mean  to  elect."  Compare  with  the  first 
half  of  this  quotation  for  instance  the  following  word  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  Epitome  XI.  (Js'.  T.,  p.  526  etc.,  §.  13): 
"Moreover,  a  Christian  should  apply  himself  to  the  article  con- 
cerning the  eternal  election  of  God,  so  far  as  it  has  been  revealed 
in  God's  Word,  which  presents  Christ  to  us  as  the  Book  of  Life, 
which,  by  the  preaching  of  the  holy  Gospel,  He  opens  and  reveals 
to  us,  as  it  is  written  (Rom.  8,  30) :  'Whom  He  did  predestinate, 
them  He  also  called'.  In  Him,  therefore,  we  should  seek  the 
eternal  election  of  the  Father,  who,  in  His  eternal  divine  covmsel, 
determined  that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowl- 
edge His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  Him."  Compare 
also  in  general  the  line  of  thought  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  set 
forth  on  page  39  of  this  work,  according  to  which  the  eternal  in- 
stitution of  the  universal  way  of  salvation,  or  the  "universal  decree 
concerning  our  salvation",  forms  the  very  first  and  foremost  part 
of  election,  and  the  sole  part  which  in  its  contents  is  revealed  to 
us  men  in  the  Gospel,  and  about  which  we  are  to  concern  our- 
selves. With  the  second  half  of  the  quotation  above,  as  also  with 
the  first  sentence  of  the  whole  passage,  compare  Dr.  Walther's 
former  statement,  in  which  he  declares  it  to  be  "altoo'ether  correct" 
to  understand  the  word  -poyvyma/.t'.-^,  Rom.  8,  29,  thus:  "God 
has  elected  those  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would  believe  and 
continue  in  faith,"  (see  p.  65  above). 

On  page  30,  2  Thess.  2,  13.  is  interpreted  in  contradiction  to 
the  Weimar  Bible  as  also  in  contradiction  to  other  faithful  teach- 
ers of  our  Church,  thus:  "We  are  elected  unto  sanctification  of 
the  Spirit  and  unto  belief  of  the  truth."  And  besides  this  the 
attempt  is  made  to  refute  the  opposite  and  regular  Lutheran  in- 
terpretation, which  adheres  to  the  precise  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
by  saying  on  the  one  hand,  that  "sanctification  of  the  Spirit"  is  to 
be  taken  in  the  narrower,  and  not  in  the  wider  sense,  which  is  made 
necessary  already  by  the  order  of  words;  and  then,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  cannot  but  say,  by  dishonestly  imputing  to  the  adherents 
of  this  view  the  doctrine  "that  man  is  elected  for  the  sake  of  faith, 
thvis  also  by  implication  that  he  is  saved  "for  the  sake  of  sanctifica- 
tion" and  therefore  not  "by  grace  alone."  Compare  with  this  the 
author's  article  on  2  Thess.  2,  13.  14.  in  Vol.  I.  of  "Theologfische 
Zeitblatter,"  p.  03-105. 

Page  32  etc.:  "Even  Thomasius  identifies  election  with  the 
universal  s^racious  will  of  God  and  calls  it  'ordered  love';  namely. 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missotiri  Synod.       75 

that  God  has  instituted  the  order  that  they  who  beHeve  shall  be 
saved,  but  they  who  do  not  believe  shall  be  damned.  This,  how- 
ever, is  the  counsel  of  redemption,  not  of  election.  We  Chris- 
tians know  that  when  we  believe  we  have  God's  grace  and  our 
sins  are  forgiven  us.  And  this  is  so  certain  for  true  Christians, 
that  they  are  ready  at  any  instant  to  give  up  their  lives  for  it.  But 
now  we  come  to  think  thus:  Yes,  I  indeed  stand  in  faith,  I  have 
forgiveness  of  sin;  but  will  I  also  be  saved?  How  many  have 
already  had  faith,  but  have  allowed  themselves  to  be  deceived  by 
their  flesh  and  blood,  to  be  blinded  by  the  world  and  seduced  by 
the  devil,  and  have  fallen  away  and  gone  down  into  hell!  Now, 
God  knew  beforehand  in  all  eternity  that  His  Christians  would  be 
tormented  and  worried  by  such  thoughts  and  would  be  subject 
to  such  distress,  that  they  cannot  keep  themselves  in  faith.  Well 
then.  He  thought  (to  speak  humanly)  thus:  I  will  remedy  this. 
I  will  ordain  in  eternity  that  this  one  and  that  one  shall  be  saved, 
and  all  the  devils  in  hell  shall  not  tear  them  out  of  my  hand;  I  will 
not  only  bring  them  to  faith,  but  will  also  keep  them  therein  and 
save  them.  Defiance  to  the  creature  that  would  put  my  counsel 
to  shame!  This  sweet  comfort  the  modern  theologians  would  take 
from  us.  We  are  indeed  to  believe  that  we  are  in  grace,  but  are 
to  think:  Probably  I  will  still  be  lost;  for  I  know  what  an  evil 
heart  I  have,  what  an  impression  the  world  makes  upon  me,  how 
crafty  the  devil  is;  how  quickly  may  I  thus  fall  away  and  be  lost!" 
— Here  the  following  must  be  noted  especially:  1)  How  entirely 
insufficient  for  the  actual  attainment  of  salvation,  and  therefore 
how  little  comfortable,  according  to  this  modern  Missourian  view, 
is  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  appointed  for  all  poor  sinners; 
2)  How  very  similar  this  modern  Missourian  election  is  to  the 
unconditional  Calvinistic  election  which  operates  with  an  irre- 
sistible power — as  similar  as  one  e^g  is  to  another;  3)  How  also, 
if  election  in  this  sense  is  to  be  consolatory,  and  is  to  insure  to  the 
Christian  the  unconditional  certainty  of  salvation,  the  election 
itself  must  be  unconditionally  certain  for  man,  something  that 
could  be  the  result  only  of  an  immediate  revelation,  as  no  one  is 
able  to  obtain  this  unconditional  certainty  from  the  Scriptures; 
4)  How  the  opposite  doctrine  is  misrepresented  and  distorted,  so 
that  it  may  be  more  easily  refuted. — -We  have  the  same  thing  in 
the  following  passages :  'Tt  is  certainly  hard  to  comprehend  how  a 
Christian  can  be  altogether  quiet  who  knows  nothing  about 
election,  especially  when  he  is  still  in  his  youth,  and  when  it 


76  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

does  not  yet  appear  that  he  will  soon  die.  One  who  is 
near  death  may  indeed,  even  if  he  has  not  this  doctrine, 
be  comfortable;  for  he  tells  himself:  'I  believe  in  my  dear 
Savior,  and  will  thereby  be  saved';  and  in  such  faith  he  also 
enters  into  heaven.  But  he  who  is  still  in  his  full  strength  and 
power  must  always  think :  'What  a  wicked  heart  I  have ;  How 
weak  I  am  over  against  all  temptations.  O,  will  I  then  be  saved?' 
Just  as  little,  however,  can  it  be  understood,  how  any  one  can  not 
be  altogether  content  when  he  believes  in  election;  for  such  a  one 
can  say  to  his  God:  'My  God,  Thou  dost  not  forsake  me;  Thou 
hast  not  only  called  me;  it  is  thy  grace  also  that  I  have  been  saved 
out  of  my  destruction.  Now  I  am  Thy  dear  child ;  it  is  impossible 
that  Thou  shouldst  foresake  me.'  Yes,  the  fact  that  God  has  given 
us  the  doctrine  of  election  is  an  inestimable  addition  of  His  love 
to  the  gift  that  He  has  given  us  His  own  Son.  It  is  indeed  a  still 
greater  love  when  one  does  not  only  give  me  a  gift,  bvit  also  pro- 
vides that  I  may  not  lose  it  again.  If,  for  instance,  some  one 
should  give  me  a  golden  stafif,  and  I  have  yet  a  thousand  miles  to 
travel,  the  present  is  indeed  a  great  gift;  still  if  I  must  travel  the 
long  way,  perhaps  even  through  a  forest  infested  by  robbers,  I 
may  in  the  next  hour  lose  my  stafif  again.  If  now  the  giver  tells 
me :  T  will  also  send  you  the  gift  safely  through  the  forest  to  your 
home,'  it  is  evidently  a  greater  love,  than  if  he  had  only  given  me 
the  gift.  Thus  also  God  has  not  only  given  us  saving  faith;  He 
also  provides  by  His  election  that  we  may  not  lose  it  again ;  and  in 
case  we  should  lose  it  for  a  time,  that  we  may  most  certainly  ob- 
tain it  again.  For  an  elect  person  may  indeed  again  lose  his  faith ; 
but  he  cannot  die  without  having  regained  it.  This  his  election 
will  not  permit."  (P.  35  etc.)  "There  are  very  many  who  admit 
that  there  is  an  election;  but  they  understand  thereby  nothing 
save  this,  that  God  has  foreknown  how  people  would  be,  and  ac- 
cording as  He  foresaw  this  in  His  omniscience,  He  has  said:  He 
who  conducts  himself  thus  shall,  so  I  decree,  fare  thus :  He  that 
is  godly  shall  be  saved ;  he  that  is  godless  shall  be  cast  into  hell. 
Thereby,  however,  they  reduce  the  decree  of  election  to  a  mere 
foreknowledge  of  God"  (?).  "There  is  a  mighty  difference  be- 
tween mere  foreknowledge  and  foreordination.  For  my  fore- 
knowing a  thing  is  not  the  reason  for  its  taking  place.  On  the 
contrary,  I  can  only  foreknow  a  thing,  because  it  thus  takes  place. 
Thus  the  fact  that  a  thing  will  occur  at  a  certain  time  is  the  reason 
for  God's  foreknowing  it,  and  never  will  a  thing  occur  simply  be- 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       77 

cause  God  foreknows  it;  for  He  also  foreknows  the  evil,  and  then 
the  evil  would  be  regarded  as  taking-  place  because  God  foreknows 
it.  Saturday  does  not  follow  Friday  because  I  foreknow  it.  Just 
as  Httle  will  any  one  reach  heaven  because  God  foreknows  it.  Be- 
cause it  is  already  certain  through  election  that  a  person  is  to  reach 
heaven,  therefore  God  foreknows  it;  hence  election  must  be 
something  different  from  mere  foreknowledge.  It  is  a  decree, 
an  act  of  God,  the  reason  and  cause  why  this  takes  place  that  I  am 
saved.  I  can,  indeed,  know  that  to-morrow  some  one  will  be  exe- 
cuted. This  my  knowledge,  however,  is  not  the  cause  that  the 
execution  takes  place.  The  judge,  on  the  other  hand,  who  tries  the 
criminal,  does  not  foreknow  only,  but  he  determines  the  execu- 
tion. His  decree,  his  sentence  is  the  cause  that  the  man  must  die 
to-morrow.  In  the  judge,  therefore,  there  are  two  things,  fore- 
ordination  and  foreknowledge,  and  the  latter  is  conditioned  by  the 
former.  Likewise  there  is  in  God  regarding  the  salvation  of  the 
elect  not  only  foreknowledge,  but  also  foreordination ;  the  former 
is  dependent  upon  the  latter.  God's  decreeing  that  a  number  of 
men  shall  be  saved,  is  the  cause  that  they  are  saved.  If  this  were 
not  so,  no  man  would  be  saved,  except  at  utmost  little  children. 
Though  God  has  indeed  declared  by  revelation  that  he  who  be- 
lieves to  the  end  shall  be  saved,  if  he  does  not  keep  us,  all  is  lost. 
He  who  thinks :  O,  I  beheve,  I  have  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments,, 
now  I  cannot  miss  salvation — he  knows  not  himself;  for  he  does 
not  know  that  in  himself  there  is  nothing  good,  hence  no  ability 
to  hold  fast  to  the  grace  of  God  ....  Therefore  God  has  decreed: 
I  will  cause,  will  help,  and  provide  that  they  whom  I  have  foreseen 
for  Myself  shall  also  certainly  get  to  heaven.  The  result  of  this 
is,  that  whosoever  is  elected  cannot  be  lost,  and  if  all  the  gates  of 
hell  should  conspire  against  him.  God  is  greater  than  all.  If  He 
has  decreed  to  save  me.  He  will  also  carry  out  His  decree."  (P.  41 
sq.)  With  this  mixture  of  Biblical  Lutheran  truths  and  Calvinistic 
principles  compare  first  of  all  what  has  been  stated  above  by 
Schneckenburger  (p.  30  sqq.)  and  by  Fiirbringer  (p.  54  sqq.),  and 
then  note  how  here  also  a  man  of  straw  is  attacked.  And  more- 
over, if  the  argumentation  of  the  last  passage  be  consistently  ap- 
plied, note  how  God  can  foreknow  only  what  He  Himself  has 
resolved  to  execute  in  an  irresistible  manner;  consequently 
that  He  either  does  not  at  all  foreknow  evil;  or  that  He  foreknows 
it  Only  because  He  Himself  is  its  author. 

Concerning  Matth.  24,  24  we  read:.    "In.  the  last  times  the 


78  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

most  seductive  false  prophets  shall  arise,  who  shall  appear  in 
a  manner  so  as  even  to  deceive,  'if  it  were  possible,"  the  elect.  Note 
that  the  Lord  does  not  say.'If  they  are  not  on  their  guard,  they 
shall  be  seduced,'  but  'if  it  were  possible.'  He  thereby  states 
clearly  that  it  is  not  possible.  There  is  reason  enou.gh  for  seduc- 
tion, namely  the  tempting,  the  infatuating,  the  blinding  on  the  part 
of  these  people;  but  election  dispels  all  fear  and  uneasiness.  God 
Himself  provides  that  the  elect  are  not  seduced."  (P.  43.)  Com- 
pare with  this  Missourian  consolation,  which  consistently  and  of 
necessity  leads  to  security,  the  admonitions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
resting  on  an  entirely  different  basis,  1  Pet.  5,  8:  "Be  sober,  be 
vigilant"  (="be  on  your  guard");  "because  your  adversary,  the 
devil,  as  a  roaring  lion,  walketh  about,  seeking  whom  he  may  de- 
vour" (something,  then,  does  depend  upon  our  being  on  our 
guard) ;  and  Phil.  2,  12 :  "Work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear 
and  trembling,"  and  the  seventh  of  the  well-known  eight  points 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  viz:  "That  the  good  work  which  He 
has  begun  in  them  He  would  strengthen,  increase,  and  support  to 
the  end,  if  they  observe  God's  Word,  pray  diligently,  abide  in 
God's  goodness,  and  faithfully  use  the  gifts  received." 

In  Acts  13,  48  the  "ordaining  to  eternal  life"  is  understood 
in  opposition  to  the  common  Lutheran,  and  in  harmony  with  the 
Calvinistic,  view  and  interpretation,  not  of  election  in  the  sense 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  whose  first  constituent  part,  con- 
ditioning everything  else,  is  the  universal  order  of  salvation,  but 
of  the  mysterious  election,  in  the  Calvinistic  sense,  of  some  par- 
ticular persons  in  preference  to  others,  and  not  based  on  God's 
foreknowledge.  "They  were  thus  already  foreordained  persons 
when  they  received  God's  Word  in  faith,  thus  evidently  ordered 
from  eternity  among  the  number  of  the  elect;  and  therefore  they 
now  attain  unto  faith."  The  Lutheran  interpretation,  viz:  "They 
had  entered  into  the  right  order,"  i.  e.,  they  belonged  to  the  num- 
ber of  those  to  whom  God  according  to  the  vmiversal  order  of 
salvation  can  give  faith  and  salvation  and  hence  also  will  give  and 
gives  both,  is  thus  rejected.     (P.  43  sq.) 

On  Page  52  sq.  it  is  deplored  as  "lamentable"  that  Philippi 
in  his  "Kirchliche  Glaubenslehre"  (2d  edit,  IV.,  1,  p.  15  sq.) 
writes  as  follows :  "Looking  not  so  much  to  the  exclusive  activity 
of  divine  grace  in  the  work  of  conversion,  as  rather  to  the  possi- 
bility founded  in  human  liberty,  that  grace,  just  because  it  is  not 
compulsory  grace,  may  reach,  or  may  not  reach,  its  goal"  ("may 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       79 

not  reach" —  these  words  absolutely  necessary  for  the  right  under- 
standing of  Philippi's  meaning  are,  strange  to  say,  left  out  by  the 
synodical  Report),  "we  are  able  to  base  foreordination  unto  life  as 
well  as  unto  death  on  the  divine  foresight  of  human  conduct''  (i.  e. 
toward  the  unmerited  grace  which  alone  works  everything,  but  not 
irresistibly).  In  passing,  permit  the  remark  that  in  this  passage 
Philippi,  "who  otherwise  wrote  so  much  that  is  excellent  and  was 
never  ashamed  of  the  pure  doctrine,"  just  in  the  very  point  contro- 
verted most  violently  by  modern  Missouri,  regarding  man's  "con- 
duct", agrees  perfectly  with  us  Ohioans ;  yet  of  him  it  is  only  said 
that  "in  the  doctrine  of  eternal  election  he  was  not  altogether 
reliable,"  while  our  doctrine  is  called  "heathenish"  by  Missouri 
(see  "Theologische  Zeitblatter",  Vol.  X.,  p.  130  sqq.,  and  compare 
Leyser's  and  Nicolai's  statements  above  p.  26). 

Page  76  sq.  reads:  "We  come  now  to  the  fifth  thing  declared 
by  many  to  be  the  cause  why  a  part  of  mankind  is  elected  unto 
eternal  life,  while  the  other  part  is  rejected.  They  who  would 
ascribe  very  little  to  man  say,  that  the  real  cause  is  that  there  is 
a  number  of  men  who  do  not  cotumaciously  resist,  and  therefore 
because  they  do  not  contumaciously  resist,  God  has  elected  them. 
And  this  does  in  fact  sound  like  an  excellent  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem. Yet  unfortunately  it  is  not.  In  this  way  the  cause  of  salva- 
tion would  still  be  ascribed  to  man.  For  if  my  non-resistance 
is  the  basal  and  real  reason,  then  I  would  really  be  my  Savior,  my 
Redeemer,  and  on  the  last  day  I  could  say  to  those  standing  on  the 
left  hand  of  the  Lord:  You  too  might  stand  at  the  right,  and 
might  be  saved  like  myself,  if  you  had  only  clone  as  I  did.  I  have 
not  resisted.  But  no;  it  will  not  be  thus.  Then  we  will  rather 
confess,  that  w^e  were  saved  only  through  grace,  through  God's  free 
mercy."  According  to  this,  a  person  is  saved  through  grace  and 
free  mercy  only  then  when  God  forcibly  breaks  down  resistance, 
so  that  he  refrains  from  it  only  because  he  cannot  do  otherwise. 
For  if  he  could  refrain  from  resistance  by  the  power  of  grace  and 
would  refrain  from  it,  although  he  could  persist  in  it  in  spite  of 
grace,  this  would  be  merit.  And  a  genuine  modern  Missourian, 
like  a  genuine  Calvinist,  will  say  at  the  judgment  day  to  those 
standing  on  the  left  hand :  God  unfortunately  did  not  bestow  upon 
you  the  same  grace  that  He  bestowed  upon  me,  since  He  did  not, 
without  permitting  Himself  to  be  hindered  by  the  resistance  com- 
mon to  us  all,  bring  you  to  faith  and  keep  you  in  faith,  as  He  did 
me.     I  can  only  pity  you.     Had  God  treated  you  as  He  did  me, 


80  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

you  would  also  stand  now  on  the  right,  as  I  stand;  just  as  I  would 
stand  with  you  on  the  left,  had  He  treated  me  as  He  did  you,  had 
He  not  given  me  more  grace  than  He  gave  you.  That  ours  is 
thus  a  lot  so  different  is  not  due  to  our  different  conduct  toward 
grace,  but  to  God  who  imparts  His  grace  as  He  wills. 

On  page  80  sq.  the  old  Lutheran  as  well  as  old  Missourian 
doctrine,  contradicting  the  modern  jNlissourian,  is  thus  misrepre- 
sented and  distorted,  so  as  to  make  away  with  it  the  more  easily : 
"Now  we  come  to  the  last  thing  on  account  of  which  many  say 
that  finally  everything  really  depends  on  man's  decision ;  namely, 
that  he  must  believe.  Faith,  they  say,  is  the  reason  why  a  num- 
ber of  men  are  elected  and  saved ;  as  unbelief  is  the  reason  why 
others  are  not  saved.  For  we  read  in  the  Scriptures:  'He  that 
believeth  shall  be  saved';  and  just  as  God  acts  in  time,  so  He  has 
in  eternity  determined  to  act.  We  men  indeed  often  resolve  to  do 
a  thing,  yet  often  bethink  ourselves  differently.  It  is  not  so  with 
God,  He  is  Omniscience  and  eternal  perfect  Wisdom;  He  knows 
all  things  in  advance,  and  is  so  all-wise  that  He  decrees  everything 
that  He  actually  does  in  time.  'Here  you  see',  they  say,  'since 
man  is  saved  by  faith,  God  must  have  decreed  in  eternity  to  save 
man  for  the  sake  of  faith.'  Here  then  they  appear  to  speak  alto- 
gether correctly"  (?),  "and  yet  it  is  not  spoken  correctly.  The 
Scriptures  nowhere  say  that  we  are  saved  on  account  of  (wegen) 
faith,  that  we  are  justified  and  saved  because  (weil)  we  believe. 
Nothing  of  the  kind  is  found.  But  this  we  find,  that  we  are  saved 
through  (durch)  faith.  Here  we  see  that  the  Scriptures  make 
faith  not  a  cause  of  justification,  but  a  means  thereof.  This  we 
admit,  that  God  in  eternity  decreed  to  save  man  also  by  bringing 
him  to  faith  and  thereby  justifying  him  and  permitting  him  to  at- 
tain the  end  of  faith,  the  salvation  of  the  soul."  What  is-  here 
combatted,  namely  that  we  are  said  to  be  justified  and  saved  for 
the  sake  of  faith  (um  des  Glaubens  willen),  as  an  efficacious  or 
meritorious  cause,  no  Lutheran  has  ever  claimed,  neither  our  old 
dogmaticians,  nor  Philippi  or  Thomasius,  nor  an  Ohioan  or 
lowaan.  It  is  a  man  of  straw,  made  to  order,  which  is  combatted 
and  overcome  with  greater  courage  because  there  were  as  yet 
none  daring  to  combat  explicitly  and  directly  the  real  opponent, 
and  still  less  hope  of  conquering  him.  But  what  is  admitted  in 
the  last  sentence  the  most  pronounced  Calvinist  admits;  and  he 
who  does  not  admit  more  in  regard  to  faith  and  its  relation  to  the 
choice  of  the  persons  Avho  will  infallibly  be  saved,  thereby  proves 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       81 

that  on  this  point  he  is  no  Lutheran,  but  a  Calvinist  (compare 
above  p.  25  sq.,  27,  and  p.  62  sq.;  besides  this  refer  to  Rev.  C. 
Rohe's  excellent  article,  "Wie  die  Schrift  vom  Glanben  redet" — 
How  the  Scriptures  speak  of  Faith,  in  Vol.  IV.  of  the  "Theol. 
Zeitblatter,"  p.  19-28).  —  This  last  applies  also  to  the  following- 
passage  (p.  82),  in  which  the  objection:  ''What  then  shall  we  an- 
swer him  who"  (with  the  old  Lutheran  dogmaticians)  "reasons 
thus:  'God  in  election  looks  to  nothing  but  to  the  merit  of  Jesus 
Christ,  yet  not  in  abstracto,  but  in  so  far  as  it  is  appropriated  by 
any  one;  so  then  He  has  seen  that  some  one  accepts  the  merit  of 
Christ  by  faith,  and  therefore  this  one  is  elect'?" —  is  answered  pre- 
cisely as  a  genuine  Calvinist  would  answer  it,  viz:  "See,  my  friend, 
the  wedding  garment  God  puts  upon  us.  He  foresaw  that  He 
would  put  it  upon  us;  that  He  would  give  us  faith.  How  now 
can  this  be  a  cause  to  be  found  in  man?  It  is  rather  a  cause  to  be 
found  in  God.  If  He  would  not  give  faith,  we  would  not  have  it. 
God  has  included  faith  in  the  decree  of  election ;  faith  belongs  to 
the  golden  chain  which  God,  so  to  say,  has  forged  to  draw  us  out 
of  hell  and  up  from  earth  into  heaven.  The  first  thing  is  that  He 
has  elected  me;  the  second,  that  He  created  me;  the  third,  that 
He  redeemed  me ;  the  fourth,  that  He  brought  me  unto  faith ;  the 
fifth,  that  He  preserves  me;  the  sixth,  that  He  leads  me  into 
eternal  life."  Election  in  the  Missouri-Calvinistic  sense,  that  is, 
the  myterious  choice,  not  in  any  way  conditioned  or  determined 
by  any  regard  to  man's  conduct  toward  grace,  of  certain  persons 
in  preference  to  others  unto  the  infallible  attainment  of  salvation, 
this  itself  conditions  or  determines  everything  else,  also  the  giving 
of  faith;  and  therefore  no  determining  or  decisive  regard  can  be 
had  to  faith  in  this  choice. 

We  now  quote  the  following  statements  from  the  Report, 
which  still  contain  the  old  Lutheran  and  the  old  Missourian  doc- 
trine, or  at  least  sound  like  it. 

Page  29  sq.:  "No  one  dare  say:  'O,  I  am  elected;  though 
I  live  now  as  I  please,  I  will  still  go  to  heaven';  for  just  by  living 
wickedly  a  man  proves  that  God  was  necessitated  to  count  him 
among  the  reprobate.  God  indeed  would  gladly  have  elected 
him,  for  He  would  save  the  whole  world.  But  he  who  is  such  a 
wretch  that  he  cares  nothing  about  God.  must  not  be  surprised 
when  at  last  he  opens  his  eyes  in  hell;  for  God  has  elected  not  only 
unto  salvation,  but  also  unto  the  entire  Christian  life.  No  one 
will  enter  heaven  except  he  whom  God  leads  thither  on  this  wav; 


82  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

but  our  going  on  this  way  is  not  our  merit,  but  God's  free  grace." 
The  first  part  of  this  quotation  is  genuinely  Lutheran.  But  can 
he  who  really  assents  to  this  part  actually  believe  that  God  elected 
the  persons  who  are  to  be  saved  infallibly,  without  any  regard 
whatever  to  their  foreseen  conduct?  Whereby  then  would  God 
be  "necessitated  to  count  among  the  reprobate"  a  man  "living 
wickedly"?  The  first  half  of  this  passage  does  not  agree  with  the 
Calvinistic  view  of  the  Report,  while  the  second  half  with  its  elec- 
tion "not  only  unto  salvation,  but  also  unto  the  entire  Christian 
life"  agrees  well  with  it.  For  according  to  what  has  been  stated 
above,  this  can  only  mean  that  as  he  whom  God  has  elected 
shall  and  must  be  saved  as  surely  as  God  is  God,  so  he  shall  and 
must  also  finally  come  to  true  faith  and  to  a  Christian  life  and  die 
therein.  The  election  which  works  itself  out  irresistibly  provides 
for  this.  A  man  may,  indeed  he  must,  reason,  according  to  the 
Missouri-Calvinistic  doctrine,  in  this  way:  Whatever  may  be 
the  manner  in  which  I  conduct  myself  toward  the  means  of  grace 
and  otherwise,  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  my  coming  to  faith 
and  my  being  saved.  If  I  am  elected,  then  this  election  will  pro- 
vide that  I  finally  become  a  Christian  and  die  as  such  and  thus 
reach  heaven.  If,  however,  I  am  not  elected,  it  will  profit  me 
nothing,  though  I  strive  with  all  power  to  become  a  Christian  and 
to  live  and  die  as  such.  "God  has  elected  a  number  of  men  al- 
ready from  eternity  unto  salvation,"  and  this  without  any  decisive 
regard  to  their  foreseen  conduct.  "He  has  decreed  these  shall 
and  must  be  saved;  and  as  surely  as  God  is  God,  so  surely  also 
these  will  be  saved,  and  none  but  these."  No  wicked  life,  not 
even  the  worst,  can  prevent  the  salvation  of  him  who  is  elected. 
Election  will  certainly  provide  that  he  will  at  least  not  die  in  this 
wicked  life.  That  these  are  not  unwarranted  deductions  drawn 
only  by  ourselves,  but  rather  conclusions  following  necessarily 
from  the  modern  Missourian  as  well  as  from  the  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine, is  demonstrated  by  the  quotations  given  above. 

On  page  33  we  read:  "An  excellent  definition  of  predestina- 
tion is  given  by  the  Lutheran  theologian  Wandalinus,  Professor 
in  Copenhagen,  in  the  following  words :  'Predestination  or  elec- 
tion is  the  eternal  act  of  God  by  which  He  has  chosen,  according 
to  the  pleasure  of  His  will,  and  only  for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of 
Christ,  from  the  whole  mass  of  the  fallen  human  race,  all  those 
unto  eternal  life  of  whom  He  has  foreseen  that,  through  the 
means  of  salvation  to  be  offered  in  time  to  all  without  distinction, 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       83 

they  would  truly  and  to  the  end  believe  in  Christ,  the  Redeerner 
of  all  men,  so  that  by  virtue  of  this  infallible  and  immutable  decree 
and  act  they  might  attain  salvation  to  the  praise  of  His  glorious 
grace.' "  This  "excellent  definition",  however,  is  that  of  all  our 
old  Lutheran  dogmaticians,  and  briefly  and  tersely  summarizes 
that  doctrine  which  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  Calvinistic  view 
of  the  Report  here  under  consideration! — On  the  same  page  the 
explanation  of  Dieterich's  Catechism  cited  above  (p.  64)  is  termed 
"good",  although  the  same  thing  is  true  of  it  as  of  Wandalinus' 
definition. 

Page  68  reads:  "Also  Joh.  Gerhard  writes:  'Although  God 
in  the  ordered  mode  of  His  operation  does  not  convert  those  who 
despise  and  persecute  the  preachers  of  the  Word,  and  who 
blaspheme  the  Word  and  resist  the  Holy  Spirit;  yet  this  does  not 
prove  that  it  depends  upon  man  that  he  be  converted,  as  it  is  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  not  of  human  powers,  that  man  is 
converted  by  the  hearing  of  the  \A^ord.  That  which  removes  a 
hindrance  is  not  the  same  as  an  efficacious  cause.' "  If  the  mod- 
ern Missourians  would  heed  the  distinction  here  made  by  Gerhard 
they  could  never  assert  that  it  is  synergism  to  teach,  as  we  do,  that 
conversion  and  salvation  depends  on  man's  conduct  in  so  far,  but 
only  in  so  far,  as  "God  in  the  ordered  plan  of  His  operation  does 
not  convert  those  who  do  not  hear  the  Word,  etc."  Gerhard  in- 
deed rejects  the  term  we  use,  but  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  understood 
in  a  manner  entirely  different  from  that  in  which  we  understand  it, 
namely,  in  so  far  as  it  is  made  to  say  that  it  is  "the  work  of  human 
powers",  and  not  exclusively  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  "that 
man  is  converted  by  the  hearing  of  the  Word."  That  man  can  and 
must  "remove  a  hindrance",  if  he  would  be  converted  and  saved, 
namely  his  wilful  contempt  for  and  neglect  of  the  means  of  grace, 
Gerhard  asserts  as  distinctly  as  we  do;  and  he  denies,  just  as  we 
do,  that  this  can  be  called  an  "efficacious  cause"  of  conversion  and 
salvation,  in  other  words,  that  there  is  any  synergism  whatever  in 
that  assertion. 

On  page  TO  Dannhauer's  words  are  approvingly  quoted: 
"Also  the  decision  of  our  will  in  the  first  act  of  conversion  has 
always  been  ascribed  by  the  orthodox  not  to  the  power  and  co- 
operation of  man,  but  to  the  Holy  Spirit  working  through  the 
Word  upon  the  will,  which  remains  passive  therein.  And  yet  this 
decision  is  not  a  thing  of  necessity  or  of  irresistible  compulsion, 
although,  presupposing  the  divine  order,  it  is  infallible.     For  God 


84  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

has  bound  Himself  by  the  surest  and  hoHest  promises  to  decide 
man  himself  for  conversion,  when  he  is  in  the  workshop  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  does  not  oppose  a  wicked  resistance  to  the  means 
of  salvation."  This  is  exactly  what  we  mean,  when  we  say  that 
conversion  and  salvation  depend  in  a  certain  sense  upon  man's 
conduct  toward  the  means  of  grace;  and  it  is  exactly  what  modern 
Missouri  denies  and  reviles  as  "heathenish." 

It  is  the  same  with  the  passage  quoted  approvingly  from  Joh. 
Olearius:  "Tlie  doctrine  of  the  Lutherans  .  .  .  ascribes  every- 
thing to  God  and  nothing  to  man.  This  is  not  contradicted  .  .  . 
by  4)  non-resistance;  because  even  this  is  a  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  removes  and  prevents  this  resistance,  which  is  our  own  en- 
tirely, through  the  ordinary  means  of  salvation.  For  non-resis- 
tance is  by  no  means  a  causative  exertion  of  influence,  but  only  a 
non-hindering  of  the  activity  of  one  acting;  just  as  the  leper, 
Matth.  8,  and  Lazarus,  John  11,  by  not  resisting  Christ,  were  by 
no  means  the  cause  of  the  miraculous  cleansing  or  the  awakening." 
(P.  79.)  A  man  then  may  put  an  end  to  his  resistance  by  virtue 
of  the  operation  of  "the  ordinary  means  of  salvation,"  without 
an  especial,  mysterious  grace  of  election.  And  when  he  thus 
puts  an  end  to  it,  he  is  by  no  means  thereby  a  "cause"  of  his  own 
conversion  and  salvation.  Accordingly  our  doctrine  in  teaching 
this  is  not  in  the  least  synergistic. 

Likewise  the  quotation  p.  85  from  Calov  agrees  completely 
with  our  doctrine,  but  not  with  the  doctrine  of  modern  Missouri. 
Calov  says:  "Not  on  account  of  faith  are  we  called  the  elect, 
but  through  faith  in  Christ,  of  which  the  former  is  the 
designation  of  the  moving  cause,  the  latter  of  the  instru- 
mental cause.  Meissner  reminds  us  that:  'When  faith  is  called 
the  cause  of  election,  not  the  moving  or  impelling  cause  dare  be 
understood  thereby'.  'For',  says  Hutter,  'election  does  not  de- 
pend on  faith  as  its  moving  or  meritorious  cause.'  .  .  .  And  Ger- 
hard says,  that  it  is  absurd  to  say,  that  faith  is  the  impelling  cause 
of  election."  According  to  modern  Misouri,  faith  is  not  even  the 
instrumental  cause  of  election,  something  Calov,  Meissner,  Hut- 
ter, Gerhard,  and  all  our  dogmaticians  most  firmlv  assert  over 
against  the  Calvinists  (compare  above  p.  25  sqq.).  —  On  the  same 
page  the  following  words  of  Dannliauer  are  quoted :  "Predestina- 
tion does  not  depend  upon  any  work,  any  merit,  any  motive  eman- 
ating from  us,  or  through  us,  or  inhering  in  us,  for  the  sake  of 
which  election  took  place ;  not  upon  faith  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  work 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       85 

or  the  fruit  of  faith.  For  thus  we  also  say  that  the  decree  is  purely 
a  merciful  one.  The  fact  that  it  is  merciful  excludes  merits,  but 
not  the  order;  faith  is  here  not  a  work  or  merit,  but  the  foreseen 
beggar's  hand.  Hence  not  even  the  smallest  measure  of  glory  is 
left  to  man,  for  he  receives  and  does  not  give  or  earn.  Hence  God 
saw  nothing  of  active  worthiness  in  man,  nothing  good  that  was 
not  from  God  Himself.  God  remains  the  cause  and  never  be- 
comes that  which  is  caused.  In  reality  there  is  in  Him  nothing  of 
the  nature  of  a  priority  of  time ;  yet  His  will  does  not  depend  upon 
His  foresight,  although  this,  in  our  conception  of  it,  is  prior."  It 
seems  as  if  this  passage  is  cited  especially  for  the  sake  of  the  last 
sentence,  as  it  otherwise  teaches  decidedly  our  doctrine  and  not 
the  modern  Alissourian;  at  least  the  words:  "God  remains  the 
cause  and  never  becomes  that  which  is  caused,"  are  printed  in 
italics.  But  here  it  can  be  seen  distinctly  how  deceptively,  be- 
cause torn  out  of  their  connection  or  mutilated,  the  utterances  of 
our  old  dogmaticians  are  quoted  in  this  Report,  as  if  somehow  they 
favored  the  modern  Missourian  doctrine.  Nearly  the  entire  page 
preceding  this  last  sentence  in  Dannhauer's  Hodosophia  pp.  289 
sq.  is  left  out,  and  this  without  even  indicating  it  by  marks  of 
elision,  a  page  which  most  decisively  opposes  the  modern  Mis- 
sourian position,  and  puts  the  italicized  sentence  into  its  true, 
thoroughly  anti-Calvinistic  light.  The  words  omitted  before  this 
sentence,  although  absolutely  necessary  for  its  right  understand- 
ing, read  as  follows,  omitting  a  difficult  quotation  from  Aris- 
totle: "Hence  the  certainty  of  election  is  not  unconditional  (to 
assume  which  is  neither  safe  nor  certain),  but  on  the  condition  of 
persevering  faith  it  is  safe  and  certain.  And  hence  this 
is  certain  that  faith  is  of  God;  but  of  man  is  the  repuls- 
ing (repulsa)  or  non-repulsing  of  the  object  of  faith.  Nor 
is  this  the  case  that,  because  God  regarded  foreseeen  faith  in 
man's  election,  therefore  man  has  chosen  God ;  just  as  if  you  would 
say:  Nerva  has  adopted  Trajan  as  his  successor  on  account  of 
his  ability,  consequently  Trajan  has  adopted  Nerva.  Hence  we 
conclude  that  faith  belongs  to  the  divine  order,  this  order,  how^- 
ever,  God  has  instituted  as  well  as  foreseen,  and  has  also  made  it 
the  norm  of  His  election  (juxta  ilium  elegerit).  Hence 
nothing  hinders  (us  from  concluding)  that  something  may 
be  the  effect  of  one  acting  and  at  the  same  time  a 
reason  or  a  cause  foreseen  by  the  one  acting  (et  simul 
rationem    sen    causam    ab    agente   prsevisam);     for    a     house 


86  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

is  both  the  work  of  the  builder  and  the  final  cause  (causa 
finalis)  moving  the  builder  to  erect  the  house  .  .  .  Although  the 
Apostle  says  that  we  are  elected  that  we  may  be  holy,  Eph.  1,  14, 
that  we  may  manifest  our  gratitude  by  holiness  of  life;  as  when  a 
servant  would  say  to  the  physician  to  whom  his  master  had  given 
a  gift:  Thou  hast  received  a  glorious  gift  (tibi  sors  lautse  elee- 
mosynge  contigit),  because  thou  hast  grasped  it  with  the  hand  and 
not  maliciously  rejected  it,  so  that  thou  may  est  be  faithful  to  thy 
benefactor  in  the  future.  So  man  is  elected  through  justifying 
faith,  that  he  may  do  the  works  of  justifying  faith.  Although 
faith  is  not  the  cause  of  the  decree  (of  election),  it  is  nevertheless 
the  means  for  attaining  salvation  foreseen  in  the  decree.  We 
assert  that  the  foreseeing  of  faith  is  (according  to  our  human 
conception)  the  first  thing,  not  actual  faith."  And  now  comes 
the  sentence  spoken  of  above:  "God  remains  the  cause  etc." 
After  this  sentence  we  read:  "This  testamentary  condi- 
tion" (faith)  "is  the  reason  of  the  decree  of  election: 
not  because  God  has  decreed  that  Paul  should  believe, 
has  he  believed,  but  because  Paul  has  constantly  believed 
and  not  resisted  the  means  of  salvation,  has  he  been  elected  (Haec 
conditio  testamentaria  est  ratio  decreti  praedestinatorii,  non  quia 
Deus  decrevit  Paulum  credere,  ideo  credidit,  sed  quia  Paulus 
constanter  credidit  ac  mediis  salutis  non  resistit,  electus  est). 
Reason  (ratio),  I  say,  not  cause  properly  so-called  (non  causa 
proprie  dicta),  to  say  nothing  of  a  meritorious  cause,  but  a  part 
of  the  order  of  predestination  (pars  ordinis  praedestinatorii)." 

The  above  sentence  from  Dannhauer,  torn  from  its  connec- 
tion and  mutilated,  is  thus  cited  in  the  Report  to  prove  that  God  has 
not  elected  in  view  of  faith,  while  in  its  connection  and  when  given 
completely  it  proves  this  very  thing  and  defends  it  over  against 
the  Calvinistic  objections  which  now  also  Missouri  has  appropria- 
ted! This  sentence,  as  also  the  other  utterances  of  our  old  dog- 
maticians  quoted  in  a  similar  dishonest  manner  by  the  Report,  can 
be  cited  only  in  favor  of  what  the  opponents  of  modern  Missouri 
have  never  denied,  but  always  maintained,  namely,  that  faith  is 
no  efficacious  or  meritorious  reason  of  election.  Yet  how  dis- 
honest to  say  in  immediate  connection  with  the  above  sentence 
from  Dannhauer:  "Spener  speaks  altogether  differently.  He 
writes:  Tt  is  impossible  that  the  elect  should  be  seduced  to  the 
end,  Matth.  24,  24.  Yet  election  is  not  the  cause  that  such  people 
remain  faithful,  but  because  they  will  remain  faithful,  (this)  has  in- 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       87 

duced  the  Lord  to  elect  them.'  "  Dannhauer,  in  the  words  quoted 
above  and  omitted  by  the  Report,  has  said  the  very  same  thing 
(compare  also  Rev.  Fiirbringer's  statement,  p.  55  sqq.,  especially 
p.  57  sq.) !  Thus  the  attempt  is  made  to  create  the  impression  as 
if  at  least  the  old  dogmaticians,  with  whom  Missouri  had  hitherto 
been  constantly  fighting  her  battles,  were  in  reality  on  the  side 
of  modern  Missouri,  whereas,  unless  Dr.  Walther  was  suffering 
from  the  weaknesses  of  old  age  and  was  therefore  thoroughly  un- 
fit for  the  presumed  genuinely  Lutheran  reconstruction  of  a  doc- 
trine so  difficult  and  ifnportant  as  that  of  predestination,  he  must 
certainly  have  known  that  these  dogmaticians  taught  the  very 
thing  he  rejected,  and  rejected  the  very  thing  he  taught,  and  that 
it  was  a  dishonest  procedure  to  cite  them  against  a  Spener, 
Philippi,  etc.,  since  they  thoroughly  and  completely  agree  with 
them;  although  perhaps  not  in  every  expression,  yet  in  what 
constitutes  the  real  difference  between  Calvinism  and  Lutheran- 
ism. 


IIL 


THE   DOCTRINE  OF   PREDESTINATION   IN   THE 
niSSOURI  SYNOD. 


C.     THE    SYNODICAL    REPORT   OF  THE    WESTERN    DISTRICT    FOR    THE 

YEAR   1879. 

The  Calvinistic  views  of  the  synodical  Report  of  the  Western 
District  for  the  year  1877  were  recognized  at  least  by  several 
members  of  the  Missouri  Synod,  and  this  with  astonishment  and 
sorrow.  The  beginnings  of  these  views,  which  had  indeed  ap- 
peared already  before  this  on  several  occasions,  although  only  in 
a  rudimentary  and  cautious  form  (compare  above  p.  65  sqq.), 
had  been  charitably  interpreted,  especially  on  account  of  the 
preceding,  accompanying,  and  following  genuinely  Lutheran 
statements,  as  not  being  meant  so  badly.  This  was  the  case,  for 
instance,  with  the  present  writer.  After  Dr.  Walther's  articles 
against  Dr.  Fritschel  (compare  above  p.  67)  had  made  him  uneasy, 
and  he  had  expressed  his  doubts  concerning  them  in  private  and 
in  public,  not  a  little  to  the  vexation  of  Dr.  Walther  and  those  of 
his  adherents  who  followed  him  through  thick  and  thin,  he  unfor- 
tunately permitted  himself  to  be  quieted  and  confused,  and,  in  the 
opinion  that  Dr.  Walther  was  nevertheless  right,  even  wrote  an 
article  in  reply  to  Dr.  Fritschel  in  Brobst's  "Monatshefte,"  at- 
tempting to  demonstrate  that  the  latter's  position  was  not  correct. 
But  he  at  once  saw  from  Dr.  Fritschel's  reply  that,  although  his 
form  of  expression,  unless  fully  explained,  might  be  misunder- 
stood, the  doctrine  taught  therein  was  not  contrary  to  the  Bible 
and  the  Confession,  but  in  fullest  harmony  with  botli.  The  author, 
therefore,  did  not  pursue  the  matter  further,  thinking  that  the 
wdiole  controversy  was  due  rather  to  Dr.  Walther's  emphasizing 
the  one  side  sharply  and  in  a  manner  somewhat  onesided,  and  Dr. 
Fritschel's  emphasizing  the  other.  Something  of  the  same  kind 
occured  in  the  case  also  of  Dr.  F.  A.  Schmidt,  at  this  time  theolog- 
ical professor  in  the  Norwegian  Theological  Seminar}-  at  Madi- 
son, Wis.,  who  already  at  the  meeting  of  the  Northern  District 

(88) 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       89 

in  1868  had  expressed  his  doubts,  although  only  very  cautiously, 
in  the  form  of  a  question,  concerning  the  Calvinizing  utterances 
made  there  (compare  above  p.  65).  The  first  man  who.  as  far  as  we 
know,  bestirred  himself  against  the  Report  of  77  was  Rev.  H.  A. 
Allwardt,  at  this  time,  and  still,  pastor  in  Lebanon,  Wis.,  a  man 
who  was  as  loyal  a  Missourian  as  any  ever  was,  yet  not  in  slavish 
dependence.  In  the  excellent  "Zeugnis  wider  die  neue,  falsche 
Gnadenwahlslehre  der  Missouri  Synode,  etc."  (A  Testimony 
Against  the  New  False  Doctrine  of  the  Missouri  Synod  on  Pre- 
destination), written  by  him,  he  reports  as  follows,  p.  226  sqq. 
(compare  later  on  in  the  present  volume)  :* 

"A  little  after  New  Year  in  1878  I  read  the  Report  of  77.  and 
found  to  my  great  dismay  that  the  doctrine  it  contained  was  not 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  predestination.  To  be  sure.  Dr.  Walther 
did  not  say  openly  and  honestly  even  here  that  the  old  teachers 
of  our  Church  had  erred.  On  the  contrary,  he  quotes  them  in 
great  number,  as  if  he  fully  agreed  with  them;  but  his  own  re- 
marks, especially  his  interpretation  of  the  Scripture  passages  con- 
cerned, show  a  decided  Calvinistic  coloring,  so  that  this  Report 
alone  already  reveals  all  the  ambiguity  of  Dr.  Walther's  doctrine 
on  predestination.  After  attempting  for  months  to  find  a  Biblical 
Lutheran  meaning  in  the  erroneous  propositions  of  Dr.  Walther. 
I  finally  laid  the  matter  before  the  President  of  my  District.  Rev. 
Strasen,  about  in  the  end  of  March,  and  in  this  connection  I 
learned  that  Prof.  Schmidt,  too.  did  not  agree  with  the  Report  and 
had  declared  this  to  several  leading  men  in  his  Synod  (Nor- 
wegian). (The  meeting  of  the  Missouri  Synod  and  its  dealing 
with  predestination,  which  is  said  to  have  afforded  the  motive  for 
Prof.  Schmidt's  opposition,  did  not  take  place  till  the  end  of  May!) 
I  did  not  press  President  Strasen  to  give  me  an  immediate  expres- 
sion of  his  opinion.  I  had  only  explained  my  doubts  to  him  and 
given  my  reasons,  and  had  requested  him  to  investigate  the  mat- 
ter. When  I  again  spoke  to  him  about  it  some  time  later,  I  found 
that  he  had  reached  the  same  conclusion  to  which  I  had  come. 
Nothing  further  occured  in  the  matter  during  the  rest  of  the  year, 
except  that  I  tested  Dr.  Walther's  propositions  again  and  again 
by  the  Scriptures  and  by  the  Confessions,  and  that  I  studied  our 

*As  a  correctiou  of  the  Missourian  vilifications,  directed  especialh^ 
against  Dr.  Schmidt  regarding  the  outbreak  of  the  predestination  con- 
troversy, this  report  coming  from  a  man  as  trustworthy  and  well-in" 
formed  as  anv  in  the    INIissouri   Svnod,  will    be  welcome  to  our    readers. 


90  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

old  dogmaticians  diligently,  as  far  as  I  could  secure  their  writings, 
and  that  I  spoke  with  President  Strasen  on  the  subject  almost 
every  week.  At  Easter  (still  prior  to  the  meeting  of  Synod)  I 
spoke  also  with  Prof.  Schmidt.  And  from  this  time  on  until  Oc- 
tober, 1879,  we  three.  President  Strasen,  Prof.  Schmidt,  and  I, 
very  frequently  discussed  the  whole  matter,  and  we  were  agreed 
in  our  judgment  concerning  the  Report.  At  Christmas  Prof. 
Schmidt  again  visited  us,  and  expressed  his  determination  to 
discuss  the  doctrine  of  predestination  in  the  Lutheran  Standard, 
for  which  paper  he  had  already  written  frequently;  but  his  inten- 
tion was  to  do  this  without  in  the  least  attacking  the  Missouri 
Synod.  He  desired  simply  to  set  forth  the  doctrine,  as  he  could 
not  satisfy  his  conscience  by  remaining  altogether  silent  in  the 
face  of  error.  We  two,  President  Strasen  and  I,  dissuaded  him 
from  this  course  and  urged  him  to  confer  privately  with  the  men 
at  St.  Louis;  and  this,  at  the  further  advice  of  men  in  his  own 
Synod,  he  did.  As  a  result,  a  colloquium  was  arranged  between  Dr. 
Walther  and  Prof.  Schmidt,  which  was  held  in  July,  1879,  in  Co- 
lumbus, Ohio.  Dr.  Walther,  however,  after  conferring  a  day  and 
a  half,  broke  ofif  the  colloquium,  saying  that  he  had  no  more  time. 
Yet  a  renewal  of  the  discussion  was  arranged  for  the  following 
year,  in  which  several  others  were  also  to  take  part  representing 
both  sides.  Dr.  Walther  also  asked  Prof.  Schmidt  whether  he 
would  refrain  from  writing  meanwhile,  and  received  the  answer 
that  this  would  depend  on  the  position  the  Missouri  Synod  would 
take  in  the  matter  in  autumn.  The  Western  District  had  yet  one 
thesis  left  over  for  consideration  from  the  year  '77,  and  Prof. 
Schmidt  repeatedly  expressed  the  hope  to  me  that  perhaps  Dr. 
Walther  would  yield  so  far  at  this  meeting  in  the  autumn  of  '79, 
as  to  satisfy  us  and  to  make  even  the  colloquium  in  the  summer 
of  1880  superfluous.  So  far  removed  from  his  mind,  even  at  this 
time,  was  any  thought  of  making  a  public  and  direct  attack  upon 
Dr.  Walther.  And  this  was  more  than  a  year  after  the  meeting 
which  is  said  to  have  given  him  the  pretext  for  beginning  a  public 
controversy.  ...  I  for  my  part  had  sent  a  paper  to  the  general 
president  of  the  Missouri  Synod,  Rev.  Schwan,  in  May  1879,  in 
which  I  set  forth  at  length  my  doubts  in  regard  to  the  Report  of 
'77,  and  said  openly  that  I  found  'the  beginnings  of  Calvinism' 
in  it.  I  requested  him  to  advise  me  how  to  act  in  the  matter." 
President  Schwan  thought  it  best  to  send  Rev.  Allwardt's  paper  to 
Dr.  \A^alther  so  that  he  could  "express  himself  more  fully  on  the 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Sj'nod.       91 

subject."  Rev.  Alhvardt  gave  his  consent  to  this,  and  stated  pub- 
licly at  a  Pastoral  Conference  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  Calviniz- 
ing  doctrine  of  predestination  contained  already  in  the  synodical 
Report  of  the  Northern  District  of  "71;  where  the  attempt  was  made 
to  refute  him,  for  instance,  by  quoting  from  John  Gerhard  Cal- 
vinistic  sentences  which  he  quotes  and  refutes,  as  though  they 
were  the  doctrine  of  Gerhard  and  of  the  Lutheran  Church!  "Dur- 
ing the  same  week,  however,  during  which  this  Conference  took 
place  in  Oshkosh,  Wis.,  the  Western  District  Synod  met  in  St. 
Louis,  near  the  end  of  September,  1879.  While  Prof.  Schmidt 
and  myself,  as  also  others  who  knew  of  the  matter,  had  some  hope 
that  Dr.  Walther  would  here  explain  himself  sufTficiently,  and  had 
no  expectation  in  any  case  that  he  would  touch  upon  our  objec- 
tions while  we  were  absent,  he,  as  the  Report  shows,  did  this  very 
thing,  in  a  way  I  would  have  considered  absolutely  impossible. 
While  he  had  broken  off  the  colloquium  in  Columbus  and  ar- 
ranged another  for  the  following  year  with  his  opponent,  and  had 
asked  of  him  to  refrain  from  public  attack  till  that  time,  and  while 
he  had  not  answered  a  syllable  as  yet  to  my  writing  sent  him  by 
the  President,  he  alDused  our  arguments  thoroughly  before  this 
Synod,  caricatured  them  most  shamefully,  ridiculed  them,  and 
designated  us  by  the  most  vicious  heretical  names.  We  are  de- 
scribed as  rationalists,  synergists.  Pelagians,  followers  not  only 
of  the  papists  in  general,  but  especially  also  of  that  'cunning  and 
treacherous  Bellarmin'  (a  Jesuit)." 

Having  mentioned  by  way  of  introduction  these  facts,  which 
throw  light  upon  several  points,  particularly  upon  Dr.  Walther's 
customary  and  favorite  way  of  treating  his  "opponents,"  we  now 
turn  our  attention  to  the  Report  of  '77.  Side  by  side  we  find  Cal- 
vinistic  views,  old  Lutheran  and  old  Missourian  reminiscences, 
and  the  distorted  doctrine  not  only  of  the  "opponents,"  but  also  of 
the  old  Lutheran  dogmaticians,  who  were  still  called  upon  for 
assistance  in  the  old  favorite  way.  In  the  following  we  furnish  a 
number  of  proofs  for  this. 

The  basis  for  the  doctrinal  discussion  consisted  of  five  theses 
into  which  Dr.  Walther  had  divided  the  last  one  of  the  theses  of 
'77,  which  for  lack  of  time  had  not  been  discussed.  These  five 
theses  are  to  set  forth  the  right  use  of  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion, and  they  are  wholly  composed  of  sentences  and  passages 
from  Art.  XL  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  The  first  con- 
tains  the   main    part   of   §.    12,   on   p.   652   of  Jacobs'   Transla- 


'92  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

tion  of  the  Book  of  Concord;  the  second,  §  25  and  the  beginning^ 
of  §  26  on  p.  653;  the  third,  the  middle  of  §  26;  the  fourth,  §  70-72 
on  p.  661,  etc. ;  the  fifth,  §  73  on  p.  662.  All  these  theses  or  utter- 
ances of  the  Formula  of  Concord  rightly  understood,  i.  e.  accord- 
ing to  the  sense  and  connection  of  the  Confession,  as  also  accord- 
ing to  the  universal  interpretation  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  com- 
pletely overthrow  the  modern  Missouri  doctrine.  They  are  in- 
telHgible  only  when  election  in  the  narrow  sense,  the  choice  of 
persons  who  will  infallibly  and  alone  be  saved,  is  taken  as  a  self- 
evident  and  necessary  result  of  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation, 
and  not  made  to  stand  by  the  side  of  this  depending  merely  upon 
the  secret  pleasure  of  God.  Everything  said  in  the  elaboration 
of  thesis  1  against  the  Calvinists  applies  just  as  well  to  the 
modern  Missoufians,  as  their  doctrine  also,  if  consistently 
carried  out,  like  that  of  the  Calvinists,  leads  either  to  se- 
curity or  to  despair.  That  modern  Missouri  denies  this  does  not 
alter  the  fact;  the  Calvinists  also  deny  the  correctness  of  the 
■charges  brought  against  them  as  necessary  conclusions  from  their 
•doctrine.  In  spite  of  this  the  Report  in  question  repeats  these 
charges  as  well  founded.  But  what  is  right  in  the  case  of  Calvin- 
ists must  be  fair  for  modern  Alissourians.  If  logical  conclusions 
are  valid  when  made  against  the  former,  they  are  no  less  valid 
when  made  against  the  latter.  "God  has  foreordained  or  chosen 
the  saints  whom  he  wishes  to  save  in  Christ,  from  all  eternity, 
freely  and  of  pure  grace,  without  any  regard  to  man.  .  .  .  We 
•disapprove  of  the  godless  expression  of  some  who  say:  Few  are 
chosen,  and  since  I  am  not  certain  whether  I  am  one  of  them,  I 
will  thoroughly  enjoy  myself  here.  Others  say:  If  I  am  pre- 
destinated or  chosen  of  God,  nothing  that  I  do  will  prevent  my 
salvation,  which  is  already  immovably  fixed.  But  if  I  belong  to 
the  reprobate  class,  no  faith,  no  repentance  will  help  me,  since 
God's  decree  cannot  be  altered.  Therefore,  all  instruction  and 
-admonition  is  useless.  Against  such  reasoning  the  Apostle's 
word  is  directed :  'The  servant  of  the  Lord  must  be  apt  to  teach, 
instructing  those  that  oppose  themselves,  if  God  peradventure 
will  give  them  repentance  to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth, 
and  that  they  may  recover  themselves  out  of  the  snare  of  the  devil 
who  are  taken  captive  by  him  at  his  will'  (2  Tim.  2).  .  .  .  We 
therefore  censure  those  who  without  taking  into  consideration 
Christ  raise  the  question  whether  they  are  chosen,  and  what  God 
in  all  eternitv  determined  concerning  them.     For  we  must  listen 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       93- 

to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  believe  it  and  hold  fast  without 
doubting,  that  if  we  believe  in  Christ  and  abide  in  Him  we  are 
chosen,  etc."  Who  says  this?  It  reads  precisely  like  a  passage 
from  the  Report  of  the  Western  District  of  the  ^Missouri  Synod 
for  '77,  or  for  '79.  Yet  it  is  a  passage  from  the  genuinely  Re- 
formed second  Helvetian  Confession  prepared  by  the  Calvinist 
Bullinger  (compare  Bachman,  "Die  wichtigsten  Symbole,"  etc. — 
The  Most  Important  Symbols,  etc. —  p.  50  sq.).  In  fact  the  en- 
tire 10th  article  of  this  Calvinistic  Confession  with  its  heading: 
"Concerning  the  Divine  Predestination  and  Election  of  Saints," 
might  have  a  place  without  any  essential  change  in  one  of  these 
Missouri  Reports  as  "pure  doctrine."  In  precisely  the  same 
way  as  the  modern  Missourians  the  Calvinists  defend  them- 
selves against  the  accusations  brought  against  them  as  logical 
conclusions  from  their  position,  by  talking  about  conclusions 
that  cannot  be  allowed  here,  about  taking  captive  our  reason 
under  the  obedience  of  faith,  about  mysteries  to  be  most  humbly 
adored.  This  method,  too,  is  a  proof  of  the  kinship  of  the  two. 
At  any  rate  modern  Missourians  have  no  right  to  complain  when 
we  use  against  them  the  same  weapons  they  employ  against  the 
Calvinists,  i.  e.  when  we  appeal  to  logical  conclusions. 

But  we  turn  now  to  some  of  the  characteristic  utterances  of 
the  Report  of  '79. 

On  page  39  sq.,  is  found  the  famous  passage:  "The  troubled 
conscience  thinks :  If  God  knows  that  I  will  go  to  hell,  I  will  cer- 
tainly go  there,  do  what  I  will.  The  number  of  the  elect  cannot 
be  increased  or  diminished.  What  God  foreknows  must  take 
place.  If  I  belong  not  to  the  elect,  I  may  hear  God's  Word  ever 
so  diligently,  have  myself  absolved,  go  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  this 
is  all  useless.  What  does  Luther  answer?  'This  indeed  is  true 
and  must  be  admitted.'  He  here  invents  no  other  gospel  for  him, 
but  holds  him  fast  by  this  truth."  But  Luther  does  not  say  what 
this  Report  makes  him  say.  He  only  declares  "that  God  Almighty 
knows  from  eternity"  how  every  man  will  fare  and  how  (according 
to  the  subsequent  will  of  God  wdiich  has  regard  to  man's  conduct) 
every  man  indeed  shall  fare.  The  Report,  however,  here  reveals 
its  own  genuinely  Calvinistic  trend,  according  to  which  every- 
thing depends  on  the  choice  of  persons,  and  yet  this  choice  itself 
is  said  to  have  been  made  without  any  regard  to  man's  foreseen 
conduct.  And  what  the  Report  then  adds  in  the  line  of  "universal' 
medicine,"  "consolation  of  the  GospelJ'  is  altogether  similar  to. 


94  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestiyiation. 

the  close  of  the  above  quotation  from  the  Reformed  Confession. 
Note  also  how  the  Report  even  goes  beyond  this.  What  is  there 
said  to  be  contrary  to  the  word  of  the  Apostle  is  here  called  by  the 
Report  "gospel"  and  "truth." 

On  page  37  sq.,  a  passage  from  Seb.  Schmidt  is  quoted  and 
misinterpreted,  which,  in  spite  of  some  peculiarity  in  its  wording, 
agrees  perfectly  with  the  doctrine  of  our  old  dogmaticians,  as  it 
derives  the  choice  of  person  and  what  most  naturally,  according  to 
the  appendix  to  the  well-known  eight  points  (Jacobs'  Transl.  p.653, 
§  23),  pertains  thereto,  from  the  subsequent  will  of  God  (voluntas 
consequens),  i.  e.  from  that  will  which  on  the  basis  of  God's  fore- 
knowledge has  regard  to  the  different  conduct  of  men  toward  the 
means  of  grace.  In  connection  with  this  we  read:  "When  God 
gives  the  elect  His  grace  for  their  perseverance,  the  non-elect  have 
no  right  to  accuse  God  that  He  did  not  give  to  them  also  this 
same  rich  measure  of  grace;  for  God  does  not  owe  us  an  especial, 
greater  measure  of  grace.  God  would  point  him  who  would  do 
this  to  the  Scripture  passage:  'Is  it  not  lawful  for  me  to  do  what 
I  will  with  mine  own?  Is  thine  eye  evil  because  I  am  good?' 
A  clear  example  of  this  rich  measure  of  grace  we  find  in  Paul. 
He  had  fought  against  the  Christians  in  the  most  wicked  way. 
He  tried  to  make  them  blaspheme  by  threatening  them  with 
death;  and  behold,  he  is  converted,  and  that,  too,  in  the  most 
wonderful  way.  Christ  Himself  appears  to  him,  speaks  with  him, 
and  tells  him  where  to  go  to  learn  the  way  unto  salvation.  This 
is  evidently  a  'gratia  amplior,'  a  greater  grace  than  God  vouch- 
safes to  others,  whereby  He  would  especially  glorify  His  good- 
ness. Fathers  often  act  similarly.  Many  a  father  is  more  gra- 
cious to  one  child  than  to  another,  because  it  obeys  him  better  and 
gives  him  more  joy  than  the  other.  He  gives  food  and  drink 
also  to  the  latter  and  seeks  its  happiness  also;  yet  upon  the  former 
he  bestows  a  greater  abundance  of  love's  gifts.  Thus  also  God 
deals  with  us ;  only  He  does  not  even  ask  whether  we  have  obeyed 
or  not,  but  does  as  He  wills." — In  this  confused  passage  note  es- 
pecially the  following:  (1)  Contrary  to  Seb.  Schmidt  the  richer 
grace,  which  for  instance  a  Lutheran  possesses  as  compared  with 
a  Romanist  or  Calvinist,  the  child  of  a  living  Christian  as  com- 
pared with  that  of  a  hypocrite,  which,  however,  can  also  be  wil- 
fully resisted  (Acts  26,  19;  Matth.  11,  20  sqq.),  is  here  identified 
with  the  "grace  for  perseverance,"  which  in  distinction  from  the 
former  is  offered  to  all  without  exception,  and  according  to  Seb. 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       95 

Schmidt  "is  promised  and  offered  earnestly  according  to  the  an- 
tecedent will  even  to  the  reprobate,"  and  is  not  imparted  only  to 
those  who  by  wilful  and  persistent  resistance,  which  they  might 
refrain  from  by  virtue  of  the  grace  working  in  them,  reject  it. 
2)  According  to  the  statements  of  the  Report  God  does  not  deal 
like  a  father,  but  altogether  differently,  that  is,  arbitrarily,  bestow- 
ing or  withholding  the  grace  of  perseverance  in  faith,  and  there- 
with salvation,  without  any  regard  to  the  use  man  has  made  of 
grace  previously  received.  Thus  we  have  here  also  the  "shall- 
and-must"  grace  of  the  Report  of  '77.  And  when  the  Report  seeks 
to  utilize  what  Seb.  Schmidt  says:  "And  thus  we  can  say  with 
Luther  that  man  is  predestinated  to  faith  itself,"  it  gains  nothing 
at  all,  for  Seb.  Schmidt  derives  this  very  predestination  from  the 
subsequent  will  briefly  characterized  above,  and  not,  as  do  the 
modern  Missourians,  from  the  antecedent  will.  In  other  words, 
Seb.  Schmidt  regards  that  man  as  predestinated  unto  faith  of 
whom  God  has  foreseen  that  he  would  permit  himself  to  be  led 
upon  the  universal  way  of  salvation  as  this  is  set  forth  in  the  eight 
points  mentioned.  In  spite  of  the  unusual  form  of  his  expressions 
Seb.  Schmidt  agrees  throughout  with  our  other  dogmaticians,  and 
not  with  the  Calvinists  and  Missourians,  who  have  no  place  in 
their  doctrine  of  predestination  for  the  subsequent  will  of  God 
and  its  regard  to  man's  conduct.  This  appeal  of  modern  Missouri 
to  Seb.  Schmidt  is,  therefore,  nothing  but  empty  show  and  de- 
ception, at  least  self-deception. 

In  the  elaboration  of  thesis  3,  p.  50  sqq.,  we  for  the  first  time 
meet  that  perversion  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  which  recurs  so 
frequently  and  in  such  manifold  variations  afterwards,  according 
to  which  the  eight  points  referred  to  do  not  aim  to  state  what  the 
Confession  means  by  election,  and  what  it  considers  to  be  contained 
therein.  "When  we  speak  of  election  we  must  include  all  those 
stages  by  which  God  would  carry  out  in  man  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion" (i.  e.  save  all  those  chosen  without  regard  to  their  conduct). 
"For  God  has  not  said:  I  have  chosen  a  number  and  they  shall 
reach  heaven,  and  that  settles  it.  On  the  contrary,  He  has  said 
what  He  would  do  now  regarding  those  whom  He  has  elected. 
He  has  loved  them  all  from  eternity,  sent  His  Son  for  the  whole 
world,  sends  His  Word  and  bestows  the  Holy  Spirit,  gives  them 
faith,  justifies  them,  keeps  them  that  they  may  remain  in  faith, 
seeks  them  again  when  they  stumble  and  fall  away,  and  helps  them 
on  into  everlastinsf  salvation.    All  this  we  must  add.     But  when 


96  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

it  is  added,  we  must  not  say:  This  is  the  thing  itself  of  which  we 
are  treating"  (i.  e.  election).  "It  would  be  false,  for  instance,  to 
preach  about  repentance  only  in  so  far  as  it  consists  of  con- 
trition. Faith  must  also  be  preached.  For  repentance,  even  when 
wrought  by  the  law,  is  worthless,  unless  the  Gospel  follow  and 
work  faith.  And  as  it  w^ould  be  a  godless  way  of  proceeding  to 
preach  concerning  predestination  merely  this:  There  is  a 
mysterious  decree  of  God,  made  by  God  in  eternity,  that  He 
would  save  a  certain  number  of  men;  these  will  surely  be  saved. 
And  there  is  another  number  of  men  who  according  to  God's  de- 
cree, although  not  by  his  decree,  are  damned.  The  number  of 
both  is  fixed,  and  there  will  never  be  less  of  either.  All  this  is  true. 
And  still  it  would  be  a  shameful  way  of  preaching,  to  say  merely 
this  and  nothing  more.  The  hearers  would  then  draw  all  sorts  of 
dangerous  conclusions.  No;  the  whole  counsel  must  be  pro- 
claimed; then  the  doctrine  of  election  will  become  clear.  This 
very  thing  is  what  makes  the  teaching  of  the  Calvinists  so  hor- 
rible. They  speak  only  of  a  mystery;  and  instead  of  directing 
the  hearer  to  the  Scriptures  they  direct  him  to  his  reason,  and  then 
the  outcome  is  a  Calvinistic  predestination.  But  let  it  not  be  mis- 
understood. This  all  is  to  be  added  according  to  the  Confessions 
of  our  Church,  and  therefore  is  not  the  same  as  though  the  Church 
had  said:  There  is  no  predestination"  (most  assuredly  none  of 
the  "opponents"  had  ever  said  or  thought  this).  "What  a  sin! 
God  has  revealed  a  religion  to  us  showing  us  how  to  reach 
heaven,  and  here  certain  people  come"  (who?  the  "opponents"?) 
"and  remove  one  of  the  most  important,  one  of  the  most  consola- 
torv  doctrines"  (the  modern  Missourian,  Calvinistic  absolute 
predestination?)  "from  the  Scriptures.  Wo  to  him  that  does  this! 
What  those  doctrines  are  that  must  be  taught  in  addition  the 
Formula  of  Concord  tells  us.  It  names  the  following  eight  points" 
(here  these  points  are  quoted,  found  in  Jacobs'  Transl.  p.  652  sq., 
§§  15-22).  "This  all  must  be  presented;  but  it  is  not  predestina- 
tion. Now  comes  a  sentence"  (i.  e.  the  appendix  to  the  eight  points 
§  28),  "which  as  the  last  part  of  this  doctrine  is  purposely  not  num- 
bered. This  sentence  declares  what  election  is.  .  .  .  Just  because 
God  according  to  election  (!)  leads  us  to  heaven  in  this  way  alone, 
the  way  must  be  described,  so  that  people  may  not  think  thus :  It 
all  depends  on  my  election.  God  has  decided  this  once  for  all, 
and  it  can  never  be  changed.  For  the  result  of  this  would  be  that 
nothing  further  would  be  preached.    But  it  is  a  dififerent  thing  to 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod. 


97 


say:  God  has  chosen  a  small  number,  and  has  not  chosen  a  large 
number,  and  these  will  be  lost;  and  then  to  add:  He  whom  God 
has  chosen  will  come  to  faith,  will  be  justified,  regenerated,  pre- 
served till  death.  This  God  has  revealed.  Here  no  man  dare  think 
that  this  dark  counsel  no  one  can  know.  No ;  this  the  whole  world 
may  know;  in  all  these  works  is  revealed  what  God  thought  in 
eternity.  Thus  God  would  lead  men  to  salvation.  If  you  will 
not  permit  yourself  to  be  led  thus,  then  you  may  indeed  feel  as- 
sured that  you  are  cast  away.  God  would  not  have  cast  you  away, 
if  you  had  not  wilfully  and  contumaciously  resisted.  God  has 
sought  also  you,  but  you  did  not  permit  Him  to  find  you.  He  has 
knocked  at  your  door,  but  you  have  not  opened  unto  Him,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  God  gave  you  grace  thereto." 

Note  in  this  connection  the  following:  (1)  This  Report, 
like  that  of  '77,  mutilates  and  falsifies  the  doctrine  of  our  old  dog- 
maticians,  so  as  to  create  the  impression  as  though  they  are,  at 
least  in  the  main  thing,  on  the  side  of  modern  Missouri ;  and  then 
it  falsifies  and  exaggerates  the  doctrine  of  the  Calvinists  so  as  to 
make  it  appear  as  though  there  were  really  an  essential  difference 
betw^een  them  and  the  modern  Missourians.  But  in  both  respects 
the  ver}^  opposite  is  the  case.  In  its  real  principles  modern  Mis- 
souri is  irreconcilably  in  opposition  to  the  old  Lutheran  dog- 
maticians,  and  in  full  accord  with  the  Calvinists.  It  is  simply  not 
true  to  say  that  the  Calvinists  teach  nothing  at  all  of  the  contents 
of  these  eight  points,  and  that  they  speak  "only  about  the  mystery." 
They  speak  of  these  eight  points  precisely  as  does  modern  Mis- 
souri, namely  as  the  way  in  which  God  brings  to  faith  and  saves  the 
elect  whom  He  has  chosen  absolutely,  without  any  condition,  and 
without  any  regard  to  their  conduct;  and  they  deny  just  as  well 
as  modern  Missouri  does,  that  these  eight  points  are  the  universal 
way  of  salvation  from  the  institution  of  which  the  choice 
of  persons  must  logically  follow.  Every  attack  thus  made 
against  the  Calvinists  is  doing  gross  injustice  to  them, 
and  is  apt  only  to  throw  dust  into  people's  eyes  and 
to  deceive  them  as  to  the  close  relationship  which  exists  be- 
tween the  Calvinists  and  modern  Missouri,  and  which  the  latter 
would  not  like  to  have  generally  knowm.  —  (2)  With  the  above 
modern  Missourian  view  of  the  eight  points,  as  containing  some- 
thing that  must  be  "taught  in  addition,"  something  that  does 
not  belong  as  an  essential  part  to  election,  compare  what  pre- 
cedes  the    eight   points    in   the    Confession    itself   as    a    preface 


98  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestiiiation. 

(Jacobs'  TransL,  p.  652,  §§  13,  14),  and  what  is  added  as 
a  conclusion  (p.  G53,  §  24:  "All  this,"  i.  e.  the  eight  points  to- 
gether with  the  appendix,  "according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  com- 
prised in  the  doctrine  concerning  the  eternal  election  of  God  to 
adoption  and  eternal  salvation,  and  should  be  comprised  with  it, 
and  not  omitted,  etc.");  and  compare  also  our  remarks  on  the 
line  of  thought  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  as  set  forth  above, 
p.  39  sqq.,  especially  p.  42  and  p.  45.  In  these  remarks  also 
Chemnitz  is  quoted  as  a  witness  fully  competent  to  vouch  for  the 
correctness  of  our  view,  which  is  in  direct  opposition  to  that  of 
modern  Missouri  and  in  fullest  harmony  with  that  of  our  old 
Lutheran  dogmaticians.  Naturally  the  chief  author  of  the  Report 
under  consideration,  Dr.  Walther,  knew  also  these  utterances  of 
Chemnitz  quoted  by  us.  And  just  as  naturally  he  found  it  neces- 
sary to  face  these  utterances,  and  therefore  he  quoted  the  passages 
cited  by  us  above,  p.  45  sq.  And  now  how  does  he  treat  it?  Hear 
and  be  astounded!  He  seizes  upon  the  closing  words  of  the 
quotation:  "This  is  the  sum  and  the  analysis"  (the  unfolding,  the 
setting  forth  of  the  chief  constituent  parts  by  name)  "of  the  doc- 
trine of  predestination,  as  it  is  revealed  in  the  Word";  and  then  he 
adds:  'Tt  must  be  remembered,  that  this  is  not  the  decree  itself, 
but  this  is  the  manner  in  which  it  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  Bible.  .  .  . 
Chemnitz  does  not  say:  This  is  the  predestination  upon  which 
God  has  determined  in  eternity;  but  he  says:  Inasmuch  and  in  so 
far  as  it  is  revealed  to  us"  (p.  55) !  What  does  any  man  know  con- 
cerning predestination  "inasmuch  and  in  so  far  as  it  is"  not  "re- 
vealed to  us"  in  the  Word?  Has  modern  Missouri  perhaps  special 
revelations  in  this  regard?  Chemnitz,  and  we,  certainly  care  to 
know  nothing  of  this,  but  are  satisfied  to  know  only  the  sum  and 
chief  parts  of  what  God  has  revealed  in  His  Word  concerning  pre- 
destination, and  are  sure  that  this  revelation  agrees  perfectly  with 
the  actual  facts  and  teaches  us  indeed  what  "the  predestination 
upon  which  God  has  determined  in  eternity"  is.  Yet  here  we  see 
how  the  attempt  to  smuggle  false  doctrine  under  a  false  name  into 
the  Church  leads  from  one  folly  and  deception  to  another — a  truth 
which  modern  Missouri  has  confirmed,  and  not  here  alone,  by  its 
procedure  in  the  predestination  controversy. — (3)  The  last  series 
of  sentences  quoted  above  from  the  Report  sounds  like  old  Lu- 
theran and  old  Missourian  doctrine,  but  does  not  at  all  agree  with 
the  real  idea  of  the  whole  passage  quoted,  nor  with  the  position  of 
the  whole  Report  as  such,  namely,  that  God  has  chosen  those  who 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.       99 

alone  are  to  be  infallibly  saved,  without  inquiring  how  men  would 
conduct  themselves  toward  His  saving  grace. 

On  page  64  sq.  are  found  the  following  confused  utterances 
regarding  the  certainty  of  election:  "We  by  no  means  teach  that 
a  man  may  be  absolutely  certain  that  he  will  be  saved.  Yet  this 
must  be  rightly  understood.  What  does  it  mean  when  we  say: 
I  am  absolutely  certain  that  I  will  be  saved?  It  means  this:  I 
know  with  complete  certainty  that  I  will  be  saved,  even  though  I 
steal  and  commit  adultery,  murder  and  cease  reading  the  Bible 
and  praying"  (yet  it  may  also  mean,  and  does  actually  mean 
among  modern  Missourians  this:  I  am  altogether  certain  that, 
though  I  fall  into  such  sins  and  live  in  them  for  years,  yet  God 
will  finally  bring  me  to  repentance  and  let  me  die  in  faith. 
See  above  p.  75  sqq.)  "This  would  be  an  accursed  certainty;  it 
would  be  nothing  but  the  most  shameful  carnal  security.  No;  if 
I  am  certain  of  my  salvation  in  faith,  I  am  certain  of  it  with  fear 
and  trembling,  as  we  will  see  more  distinctly  later  on.  If  there  is 
a  chair  in  a  room  and  I  see  it,  I  am  absolutely  certain  it  is  there ; 
for  God  has  given  me  eyes,  not  to  deceive  me,  but  that  I  may 
see  things  as  they  are.  But  it  is  not  so  with  salvation ;  for  I  have 
no  eye  with  which  to  look  into  the  Book  of  Life.  On  the  con- 
trary, I  am  certain  of  my  salvation  a  posteriori,  namely,  for  the 
reason  that  I  believe.  Just  as  Moses  could  not  behold  God's  coun- 
tenance, but  could  only  look  behind  Him,  so  we  also  cannot  look 
upon  God's  face,but  only  from  behind"  (yet  can  it  be  aught  but 
a  seeing  of  God's  "face,"  a  wanting  to  be  certain,  a  priori,  and  not 
a  posteriori,  when  with  modern  IMissouri  the  "infallible"  certainty 
of  perseverance  in  faith  is  deduced  from  the  present  existence  of 
faith?).  "When  I  say:  I  believe  with  certainty  that  I  will  be 
saved,  I  must  also  at  once  add:  But,  of  course,  when  I  am  no 
more  a  Christian,  all  is  over"  (why  then  is  modern  Missouri  not 
satisfied  with  a  conditional  certainty  of  election,  a  certainty  infal- 
lible on  a  condition  which  every  man  may  fulfill  by  the  power  of 
God's  grace?)  "But  this  is  not  to  say  that  I  may  not  be  truly  cer- 
tain of  my  salvation ;  for  to  be  absolutely  certain  and  to  be  uncer- 
tain are  not  at  all  opposites.  I  can  be  fully  certain"  (to  be  sure, 
yet  not  in  the  sense  of  the  utterances  of  modern  Missouri  as 
quoted  in  the  preceding  part  of  this  work).  "For  I  must  always 
think  thus:  Of  course,  if  I  would  become  an  impious  wicked 
rascal  and  would  reject  the  Lord  Jesus  and  would  wallow 
again  in  the  mire  of  the  world  like  a  swine,  then  God  has  given  me 


100  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

no  security.  Then  He  declares:  Let  him  go  his  way.  Yes,  then 
I  would  be  worse  than  before.  But  while  I  know  and  contin- 
ually consider  this,  I  still  believe  quite  firmly  that  my  dear  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  will  not  forsake  me.  For  my  comfort  is  not  that  I 
have  embraced  Christ,  but  that  He  has  embraced  me;  not  that 
I  am  faithful,  but  that  He  is  faithful;  not  that  I  remain  in  Christ, 
but  that  He  remains  in  me;  and  therefore  I  am  of  the  fixed  convic- 
tion, that  I  shall  be  saved,  and  that  the  Lord  will  aid  me  to  the  end. 
Now  we  hear  it  said :  •  "Against  this"  (?)  "doctrine  of  the  certainty 
of  election  the  one  fact  that  there  are  temporary  believers  stands 
like  a  very  w^all  of  iron.  It  is  said :  The  Scriptures  teach  unmistak- 
ably that  there  are  true  believers  who  believe  only  for  a  time ;  and 
this  is  directly  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  the  certainty  of  election; 
just  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutherans  that  even  the  wicked  receive 
Christ's  true  body  and  blood  in  the  Holy  Supper  contradicts  the 
doctrine  of  the  Zwinglians  that  Christ's  body  and  blood  is  not 
present  in  the  Supper.  If  all  believers  are  to  be  certain  of  their 
election,  it  is  said,  then  temporary  believers  are  likewise  to  be  cer- 
tain. Yet  these  evidently  are  not  elected,  for  they  will  not  be 
saved;  so  then  they  are  to  believe  a  lie.  Nor  can  you  escape  this 
conclusion.  We  answer:  .  .  .  This  objection  is  only  a  conclusion 
of  reason,  and  most  certainly  cannot  overthrow  the  precious 
promise  given  to  us.  We  indeed  cannot  solve  the  apparent  contra- 
diction in  regard  to  temporary  believers,  for  we  are  poor  creatures. 
But  this  shall  not  make  us  to  go  counter  to  God's  clear  Word  and 
to  rob  ourselves  and  Christendom  of  such  an  exceedingly  consol- 
atory doctrine." 

In  this  connection  note  the  following:  (1)  No  ''opponent" 
has  ever  had  anything  to  object  to  the  doctrine  of  the  certainty 
of  election  as  presented  in  the  first  half  of  this  quotation;  but 
every  "opponent"  has  indeed  had  serious  objections  to  the  pas- 
sages quoted  in  the  preceding  part  of  this  work  from  the  Report 
of  '77,  which  either  declare  directly  or  necessarily  presume  an 
unconditional  certainty,  and  which  have  nowhere  been  retracted 
in  this  Report  of  '79,  the  contents  of  which  must  of  necessity  fol- 
low from  a  doctrine  not  proceeding  logically  from  the  universal 
order  of  salvation  and  still  said  to  be  full  of  consolation.  (2)  Then 
too  the  contradiction  here  claimed  to  exist  between  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  that  there  are  temporary  believers  and  the  modern  Mis- 
souri doctrine  of  the  certainty  of  election  shows  that  this  latter 
doctrine  goes  beyond  what  is  stated  in  the  first  half  of  the  quota- 


The  Docb-ine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Sjniod.     101 

tion,  i.  e.  that  it  maintains,  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  the  Confes- 
sion, and  the  dogmaticians,  an  unconditional  certainty.  (3)  Here 
we  find  an  application  of  that  universal  remedy  of  modern  Mis- 
souri, afterwards  used  so  liberally,  whereby  every  difficulty  and 
embarrassment  produced  by  the  irrefutable  arguments  of  the 
wicked  "opponents"  is  removed,  viz:  the  "mystery."  When,  after 
the  manner  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  and  the  fathers  and  the  Re- 
formers, the  attempt  is  made  to  interpret  Scripture  by  Scripture 
and  to  show  thus  that  the  apparently  altogether  general  statement 
of  one  Scripture  passage  as  taken  by  itself  must  be  restricted  and 
limited  by  another  passage  (compare,  for  instance,  John  14,  28 
with  10,  30;  Mark  10,  11  with  Matth.  5,  32  and  1  Cor.  7,  15),  and 
when  this  is  to  be  applied  also  to  the  Missourian  innovations 
with  their  alleged  Scripture  proofs,  as  in  the  case  under  considera- 
tion, then  Missouri  objects  and  seeks  refuge  in  its  "mystery,"  ac- 
cording to  which  one  Scripture  passage  is  no  longer  to  be  ex- 
plained by  another,  but  both  are  to  be  left  standing  unreconciled 
side  by  side,  without  concern  as  to  the  resultant  contradiction. 
In  this  way  every  heretic  might  shield  his  pet  doctrine,  as  every 
heresy  has  originated  from  the  onesided  emphasis  placed  on  cer- 
tain Scripture  passages,  without  paying  sufficient  regard  to  the 
parallel  passages  on  the  opposite  side.  Thus,  for  instance,  popery 
might  undertake  to  found  its  hierarchial  claims  on  Matth.  16,  18, 
its  doctrine  of  works  on  the  Epistle  of  James,  etc. ;  the  champions 
of  the  absolute  necessity  of  baptism  might  quote  John  3,  5  for  their 
position.  The  clear  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  ex- 
istence of  temporary  believers  compels  us  to  understand  those 
Scripture  passages  which  seem  to  teach  an  unconditional  cer- 
tainty of  election  and  seem  to  say  that  this  certainty  is  furnished  by 
faith,  in  such  a  manner  that  this  is  not  the  case;  as  also  the  com- 
mon experience  of  sober  Christians  speaks  against  such  an  uncon- 
ditional certainty. 

It  is  one  of  the  tricks  of  this  Report,  that  while  it  softens  the 
expressions  for  its  own  position  as  much  as  possible,  it  perverts 
the  position  of  the  "opponents"  so  as  to  make  them  teach  that  a 
Christian  must  "doubt"  his  election  and  salvation;  and  then 
against  this  man  of  straw  our  old  teachers  are  quoted,  for  instance 
P.  Leyser  (p.  79)  and  Lassenius  (p.  80  sq.),  who  of  course  in  every 
particular  oppose  this  figment,  as  we  do  ourselves  and  have 
always  done!  For  we  most  heartily  say  with  the  latter:  "Be- 
cause you  have  hitherto  had  and  still  have  faith  in  Christ  in  child- 


102  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

like  trust  upon  His  sufferings  and  merits,  and  by  the  assistance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  desire  to  remain  constant  therein  to  your  end, 
and  likewise  use  most  diligently  all  means  for  strengthening  your 
faith,  and  call  upon  the  Holy  Spirit  for  His  assistance  therein, 
therefore,  you  dare  not  at  all  doubt  your  election.  God  indeed 
knows  His  elect,  and  you  among  them,  He  is  your  Shepherd,  and 
you  are  His  sheep;  abide  as  such  in  due  obedience  and  love  to 
Him,  and  you  will  receive  infallibly  by  His  grace  the  end  of  your 
faith,  namely,  everlasting  salvation."  Here  we  have  plainly  a 
certainty  of  election  or  salvation  which  is  conditional  on  the 
perseverance  in  faith  made  possible  by  God's  grace  for  every  man, 
which,  however,  is  infallible  on  this  one  condition  only,  and  which 
we  have  always  accepted,  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  controversy 
at  once  declared  in  unmistakable  terms.  Only  such  a  certainty  is 
known  to  the  Scriptures  (Matth.  10,  22;  24,  13:  "He  that  shall 
endure  unto  the  end,  the  same  shall  be  saved" — this  evidently 
is  not  a  mere  description  of  those  who  will  finally  be  saved;  it  is 
above  all  the  condition  on  which  alone  any  one  can  be  saved). 
Only  such  a  certainty  is  taught  by  our  Confessions  (compare,  for 
instance,  the  seventh  of  the  well-known  eight  points:  "That  the 
good  work  which  He  has  begun  in  them  He  would  strengthen,  in- 
crease and  support  to  the  end,  if"  (wenn,  Latin:  si  modo:  if  only) 
"they  observe  God's  Word,  pray  diligently,  abide  in  God's  good- 
ness and  faithfully  use  the  gifts  received"). 

But  the  Report  pretends  that  it  has  found  at  least  one  dogma- 
tician  agreeing  with  it  in  opposing  this  conditional  certainty, 
namely,  Quenstedt.  It  quotes  the  following  words  from  this 
teacher  of  the  Church  (p.  81) :  "God  desires  the  salvation  of  all 
men,  however,  not  on  the  condition  of  faith,  'if  they  would  be- 
lieve'; also  not  absolutely,  but  according  to  a  fixed  order  of  means. 
This  will  of  God  is  therefore  not  an  absolute  will,  but  a  will  ac- 
cording to  an  order,  by  no  means,  however,  (to  speak  exactly) 
a  conditional  will,  as  the  Hypothetics  among  the  Calvinists  claim. 
For  that  which  is  absolute  is  the  opposite  not  only  of  that  which  is 
hypothetical  or  conditional,  but  also  of  that  which  is  ordered  and 
fixed  by  a  certain  order  (r^i;:)."  And  to  this  the  Report  adds 
the  remark:  "This  must  be  well  noted.  For  if  we  had  a  con- 
ditional certainty  of  our  election,  we  would  have  none  at  all." 
And  thus  good  old  Quenstedt  has  become  an  ally  of  modern 
Missouri  for  all  who  simply  believe  the  statements  of  the  Report 
without   reflection   and   research   of   their   own.      But   onlv    for 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     103 

such.  For  whoever  looks  for  himself  will  find  that  here  again 
there  is  nothing  but  semblance,  and  that  too  a  semblance  pro- 
duced entirely  by  the  most  manifest  distortion  and  falsification. 
If  the  Report  had  not  omitted  but  given  the  beginning  and  the 
end  of  this  passage  from  Quenstedt,  then  every  one  would  have 
seen  at  once  that  this  passage  does  not  at  all  treat  of  election  or  of 
the  certainty  of  election!  The  beginning  reads  thus:  "The  an- 
tecedent will"  (i.  e.  the  universal  will  of  salvation),  "although,  to 
speak  properly,  it  is  not  absolute,  is  still  truly  and  absolutely  uni- 
versal; for  it  embraces  all  men  jointly  and  severally,  since  God 
wants  the  salvation  of  all  men,  yet  not,  etc."  Immediately  pre- 
ceding these  words  we  read:  "We  admit  that  the  covenant 
promises,  promising  us  salvation  under  the  New  Testament,  are 
conditional,  or  include  the  condition  of  faith;  but  we  must  distin- 
guish between  the  antecedent  and  the  subsequent  will.  In  the 
antecedent  will  this  condition  is  not  taken  into  consideration,  but 
this  is  done  in  the  subsequent  will  which  promises  salvation  only 
to  believers,  or,  on  the  condition  of  faith  in  Christ."  And  the 
closing  words  read  as  follows:  "Hence  when  the  antecedent  will 
is  called  a  conditional  will  by  some  orthodox  teachers,  the  word 
'conditional'  is  not  taken  in  its  exact  meaning  {-ar/jAwz)^  but 
in  the  sense  that  God  does  not  want  the  salvation  of  all  absolutely, 
but  in  a  certain  order,  namely  in  this  order,  that  they  repent  and 
believe  in  Christ;  yet  not  in  the  sense  of  the  Calvinists,  as  though 
God  desires  only  conditionally  (the  salvation  of  all),  if  they  all 
would  believe,  but  does  not  desire  that  all  may  believe,  but  only, 
according  to  His  absolute  pleasure,  that  the  elect  alone  may  be- 
lieve." What,  therefore,  Quenstedt  here  says  concerning  the  uni- 
versal way  of  salvation  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed 
Hypothetics  or  Amyraldists,  to  whose  views  modern  Mis- 
souri has  great  resemblance  (compare  above  p.  o7),  this  the 
Report  quotes  in  the  most  perfidious  way  against  the  opponents 
of  modern  Missouri  and  obscures  the  actual  point  at  issue  by  mu- 
tilating Ouenstedt's  words!  But  the  Report  is  very  careful  not  to 
inform  its  readers  what  Quenstedt  says  on  predestination  in  other 
places.  It  is  silent  about  what  Quenstedt  says  only  a  few  pages 
following  the  mutilated  quotation  given  above  (Cap.  11.  sect.  1, 
thes.  14.),  where  he  himself  calls  election,  which,  according  to 
his  own  doctrine,  as  well  as  according  to  that  of  all  our  dogma- 
ticians,  is  deduced  from  the  subsequent  will,  a  hypothetical  or  con- 
ditional election,  for  he  appropriates  the  words  of  Hiilsemann: 


104  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

"It  thus  belongs  to  the  form  of  predestination  that  it  is  hypothet- 
ical, or  founded  upon  a  condition,  which  is  indeed  fulfilled  by  the 
grace  of  God,  and  can  in  no  way  be  fulfilled  by  the  natural  powers 
of  man.  However,  this  condition  is  of  such  a  character  that  man 
is  able  to  prevent  its  fulfillment,  and  it  is  often  prevented  by 
nature,  yet  by  virtue  of  prevenient  grace,  which  is  common  to  all 
hearers  of  the  Word,  this  prevention  may  be  avoided."  And 
Quenstedt  adds:  "We  therefore  teach  that  this  foreseeing  of  the 
fact  that  prevenient  grace  will  not  be  prevented  belongs  alto- 
gether to  the  essence  of  predestination  (prsevisionem  igitur  non 
impediendse  prgevenientis  gratige  formam  prsedestinationisomnnio 
ingredi  statuimus)."  The  Report  also  conceals  that  Quenstedt 
in  another  place  of  his  treatise  on  predestination  (Cap.  II.  sec.  2. 
qusest.  7.)  declares  the  following:  "All  expressions  which 
promise  the  continuance  of  the  covenant  of  God  made  with  those 
who  are  justified,  as  Is.  54,  10;  Jer.  32,  38;  Hos.  2,  19;  1  Cor. 
1,  8;  Phil.  1,  6,  are  to  be  understood  as  conditional;  for  the 
covenant  of  God  is  not  absolute,  but  conditional,  and  demands 
that  on  the  part  of  man  faith  and  piety  shall  follow.  When  these  fail 
to  appear,  the  covenant  is  broken,  not  on  the  part  of  God  who 
never  changes,  ]\Ial.  3,  6,  but  on  the  part  of  men,  who  do  not  ful- 
fill the  condition  and  do  not  use  the  means  prescribed  by  God." 
From  these  passages,  to  which  dozens  might  yet  be  added,  saying 
the  same  thing,  everybody  can  see  on  which  side  Quenstedt 
stands  when  he  says  that  the  certainty  of  election  is  not  exactly 
conditional,  but  is  an  ordered  certainty,  i.  e.  bound  to  a  certain 
order  and  dependent  upon  the  observance  of  this  order;  for  he 
evidently  means  by  "ordered"  the  very  thing  other  dogmaticians 
and  we  mean  by  "conditional."  And  he  who  can  say  that  election 
itself  is  hypothetical  or  conditional  can  surely  also  say  the  same  of 
the  certainty  of  election.  Hence  it  is  nothing  but  deception  when 
Quenstedt  is  quoted  against  us  and  in  favor  of  modern  Missouri. 
In  conclusion,  the  following  passages  may  show  how  incon- 
siderate and  conscienceless  the  Report  speaks  at  times  in  its  ef- 
forts to  ridicule  the  standpoint  of  the  "opponents,"  which  it  has 
already  distorted,  and  how  it  then  contradicts  itself  where  it  speaks 
considerately  and  conscientiously.  Thus  we  read  on  page  95: 
"According  to  the  definition  of  the  word  faith,  Heb.  11,  1,  a  Chris- 
tian is  concerned  not  merely  with  present  blessings,  namely  with 
the  forgiveness  of  sin  and  with  the  gracious  will  of  God,  but  also 
with  future  blessings,  and  this  in  such  a  way  that  he  knows  that 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     105 

these  will  not  fail  him.  David  even  in  the  Old  Testament  was  cer- 
tain that  he  would  not  be  put  to  shame  in  his  hope.  How  much 
more  should  we  be  thus  certain!  Ships  on  the  sea  indeed  have 
anchors,  but  they  are  not  always  firm.  The  Christian,  however, 
has  an  anchor  that  is  firm,  so  that  his  vessel  cannot  sink.  There- 
fore a  Christian  should  glory  in  the  hope  of  eternal  life,  as  we  also 
confess  in  the  Third  Article,  that  we  believe  not  only  a  forgiveness 
of  sin,  but  also  an  eternal  life.  This  does  not  mean  to  say  that, 
I  believe  that  other  people  will  obtain  it,  but  that  I  will  obtain  it; 
that  it  is  given  to  me,  and  that  it  will  remain  mine  to  all  eternity. 
Our  opponents  indeed  assert  that  the  word  T  believe'  must  here 
be  understood  in  a  twofold  sense,  first  as  'having  with  certainty,' 
thus  in  regard  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  of  which  I  am  to  be  cer- 
tain in  faith;  then  as  'having  conditionally,'  thus  in  regard  to 
eternal  life.  But  reflect  a  moment!  If  this  were  so  we  would 
have  to  say  to  our  children  when  instructing  them :  Now  be  very 
careful!  The  first  you  must  believe  with  certainty,  the  second,  how- 
ever, by  no  means  with  certainty;  for  here  the  word  believe  has  a 
different  meaning.  But  this  is  folly.  Moreover,  we  are  to  hold 
fast  to  the  profession  of  our  hope.  But  that  is  an  extraordinary 
profession,  when  I  confess  the  articles  of  faith,  and  then  when 
the  world  asks  me:  Will  you  get  to  heaven  with  your  religion? 
I  answ^er :  Well,  that  I  don't  know.  Then  we  would  confess  that 
w^e  are  not  much  better  ofT  than  the  heathen."  This  wild  speech, 
reminding  one  strongly  of  certain  politicians  in  our  country,  is 
refuted  not  only  by  the  passages  quoted  above  from  Quenstedt, 
but  also  by  another  more  sober  passage  from  the  Report  itself 
(p.  73).  We  read  here:  "This  indeed  is  the  simplest  faith  of  chil- 
dren that  if  I  believe  in  Christ  I  shall  be  saved.  But,  to  be  sure, 
we  are  here  concerned  with  something  still  lying  in  the  future. 
That  I  am  in  grace  now"  (=have  forgiveness  of  sin)  "this  I 
know  with  absolute  certainty;  for  I  have  this  now.  But  whether 
I  will  certainly  be  saved  depends  on  my  remaining  in  faith  and  not 
falling  back  into  the  service  of  sin  and  unbelief;  yet  I  believe 
firmly  and  certainly"  (but  do  not  know  with  absolute  certainty) 
"that  God  will  keep  me  in  faith  and  holiness.  And  this  is  the 
wdiole  difiference."  It  seems  to  us  that  this  difference  is  great 
enough  and  shows  clearly  that  the  other  speech  is  only  empty  talk. 
Every  "opponent"  agrees  with  the  statement  quoted  last. 


Ill 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   PREDESTINATION   IN   THE 
MISSOURI   SYNOD. 


D.     "ALTES    UND  NEUES"   AND   "  LEHRE    UND   WEHRE"    BEFORE   THE    GEN= 
ERAL   PASTORAL  CONFERENCE   AT  CHICAGO   IN  THE    AUTUMN   OF    1890. 

"The  same  conviction  that  I  entertained  liad  been  produced 
by  the  Report  of  '79  in  Prof.  Schmidt,  namely  that  now  a  pnbHc 
testimony  must  be  made.  But  while  had  concluded  to  publish 
and  send  out  to  all  pastors  inerely  a  single  pamphlet,  he  had  re- 
solved to  publish  a  periodical.  The  first  number  of  this  periodi- 
cal was  isstied  in  January,  18S0,  four  months  after  the  disgraceful 
Synod  of  '79 ;  and  this  shows  what  must  be  thought  of  the  asser- 
tion of  those  at  St.  Louis,  when  they  declare  so  emphatically  that 
Schmidt  had  begun  the  controversy  because  he  was  embittered 
by  the  synodical  meeting  in  May,  1878."  This  is  what  Rev.  All- 
wardt  writes  in  his  "Zeugnis",  to  which  reference  has  already  been 
made.  Let  us  hear  now  what  the  chief  champion  of  truth  in  the 
controversy,  Prof.  F.  A.  Schmidt,  declared  concerning  his  posi- 
tion and  motives  in  the  preface  to  Vol.  L  of  his  periodical  "Altes 
tmd  Neues." 

"There  is  a  very  special  reason  for  issuing  'Altes  und  Neues' 
just  at  this  time.  In  the  Missouri  Synod,  which  is  looked  upon, 
and  not  without  reason,  as  the  standard-bearer  of  our  Synodical 
Conference,  there  has  been  fully  set  forth  and  defended  during 
recent  years  a  doctrine  of  predestination  which  we  cannot  but 
regard  as  a  Calvinizing  error  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  and 
the  Confession.  More  or  less  distinct  beginnings  of  this  false 
doctrine  are  indeed  found  in  part  already  earlier.  In  the  last  two 
Reports  of  the  Western  District  (1877  and  1879),  however,  this 
doctrine  which  we  are  firmly  convinced  is  false,  has  reached  its 
full  development.  Moreover,  the  Report  of  1879  has  publicly 
branded  all  those  who  hitherto  opposed  the  new  doctrine  in  the 
private  circles  of  brethren  as  opponents  of  the  Missouri  Synod,  as 
rationalists  who  make  God  a  liar,  as  dangerous  errorists,  and 

(106) 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     107 

heretics;  and  has  in  addition  dared  to  misrepresent  and  distort 
their  position  in  various  ways,  and  has  also  made  hostile  attacks 
upon  them.  No  one  will,  therefore,  think  evil  of  us,  if  w^e  as  one 
of  these  opponents  declare  this  sentence  of  condemnation  to  be 
unjust,  and  attempt  to  defend  our  Lutheranism  to  the  best  of  our 
ability.  Even  aside  from  the  decided  anathema  already  pro- 
nounced upon  us,  we  certainly  do  not  think  we  exceed  our  rig-hts 
in  now  sounding  the  alarm  against  the  false  doctrine  which  is 
publicly  set  forth  and  maintained.  By  its  offtcial  declaration  of 
war,  however,  the  Report  of  1879  has  made  our  task  considerably 
easier,  and  by  breaking  off  the  private  negotiations  so  far  carried 
on  has  challenged  us  to  open  battle.  Be  it  so.  In  God's  name  let 
us  have  open  and  decisive  war  against  this  new  Cryto-Calvinism, 
which  imagines  that  it  alone  is  entitled  to  acceptance,  and  exerts 
all  its  powers  to  hold  the  ground  it  has  already  won  and  to  gain 
more."  (P.  1  sq.) — "Those  who  know  with  what  love  we  have 
hitherto  been  attached  to  the  Missouri  Synod  as  our  church  home 
and,  recognizing  her  cause  to  be  as  a  whole  God's  cause,  have 
made  it  our  own  and  defended  it  to  the  best  of  our  abilities,  will 
believe  us  that  in  now  stepping  into  the  ranks  against  her  we  are 
not  impelled  by  any  carnal  love  of  opposition.  We  fear  that  we 
have  been  silent  too  long  already,  and  have  attempted  too  long 
to  put  the  best  construction  on  every  thing.  But  as  Ecclesiastes 
says:  There  is  'a  time  to  keep  silence,  and  a  time  to  speak'. 
Moreover,  we  on  our  part  desire  to  conduct  the  controversy,  if 
possible,  W'ithout  personal  attacks,  although  in  our  opposition 
against  this  false  doctrine  we  find  ourselves  compelled  to  set 
aside  considerations,  which  under  other  circumstances  we  have 
always  endeavored  to  regard  to  the  best  of  our  ability  and  con- 
science. We  now  appreciate  more  keenly  than  ever  the  weight 
of  the  well-known  saying:  Amicus  Plato,  amicus  Socrates,  sed 
magis  amica  Veritas  (Plato  is  my  friend,  Socrates  is  my  friend,  but 
truth  is  still  more  my  friend).  Luther  writes  concerning  this: 
'Aristotle  has  well  and  finely  said  it  is  better  to  assent  to  truth  than 
to  adhere  too  firmly  to  those  who  love  us  and  are  our  friends.  And 
it  especially  behooves  a  philosopher  to  do  this;  for  when  both  love 
us,  truth  and  a  friend,  we  should  prefer  truth  to  the  friend  and 
esteem  it  more  highly.  If  now  a  heathen  urges  us  to  do  this  in 
worldly  things,  how  much  more  should  it  be  done  in  those  things 
which  have  the  public  testimony  of  Scripture,  that  we  may  not 
prefer  the  authority  of  men  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.     For  men 


108  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

may  err;  but  God's  Word  is  the  wisdom  of  God  Himself  and  the 
most  assured  truth.'  (Walch  1,  221.) — And  so  far  as  the  offense 
is  concerned  which  may  be  occasioned  by  the  present  controversy 
with  reference  to  an  important  portion  of  the  treasure  of  pure  doc- 
trine, it  is  plain  that  they  are  to  be  charged  with  it  who  disturb 
the  Church  with  new  and  pernicious  errors  and  have  already 
brought  the  controversy  into  pulicity.  At  any  rate,  God's  Word 
is  of  more  importance  than  human  fears.  'Melius  est  ut  scan- 
dalum  oriatur,  quam  ut  Veritas  amittatur  (it  is  better  for  an  offense 
to  arise  than  for  the  truth  to  be  lost).  May  God  in  His  mercy  give 
the  victory  to  truth.     Amen." 

Only  a  blind,  fanatical  partisan,  or  a  thorough-going  union- 
ist, could  object  to  the  spirit  manifested  in  these  words  and  call 
it  fanatical,  selfish,  or  vindictive.  To  be  sure,  we  too  thought  at 
first  that  Prof.  Schmidt  should  have  waited  with  his  public  attack 
upon  Missouri  and  its  universally  revered  leader.  Dr.  Walther, 
and  should  have  tried  still  other  means.  It  still  seemed  to  us  that 
the  matter  should  not  be  considered  so  grave  as  Prof.  Schmidt 
considered  it,  and  that  the  Calvinizing  utterances  that  had  been 
made  should  at  least  be  charitably  interpreted  and  excused  in 
accordance  with  the  Lutheran  sentiments  accompanying  them, 
although  they  could  not  be  justified  and  approved.  In  reply  to 
repeated  inquiries  as  to  our  position  in  regard  to  the  whole  sad 
occurrence,  especially  in  regard  to  Prof.  Schmidt's  procedure, 
we  gave  the  answer,  that  we  agreed  perfectly  with  his  thesis,  only 
half  with  his  antithesis,  and  not  at  all  with  his  mode  of  controversy. 
And  this  was  said  in  fullest  sincerity  because  of  our  gratitude, 
still  unshaken  in  spite  of  many  a  bitter  experience,  and  our  attach- 
ment to  the  Missouri  Synod,  and  especially  to  the  man  who  was 
the  soul  of  this  Synod,  Dr.  Walther.  But  we  have  since  learned 
to  understand  the  correctness  of  Prof.  Schmidt's  insight  and  judg- 
ment, and  have  thanked  God  and  thank  Him  to-day  that  He  gave 
Prof.  Schmidt  the  discernment,  the  courage,  and  the  strength  to 
stand  up  as  he  did.  For  this  brought  the  matter  to  a  crisis,  and 
compelled  the  Semi-Calvinism  of  modern  Missouri,  instead  of 
hiding  in  the  dark  and  gradually  gaining  entrance  everywhere 
through  Dr.  Walther's  authority  and  skill,  to  come  out  publicly 
and  to  show  itself  openly  as  a  departure  from  what  had  been  con- 
sidered genuine  Lutheranism  by  friend  and  by  foe  for  nov*^  300 
years.  It  attracted  the  attention  of  all  to  this  new  departure  of 
Missouri,  gave  to  every  one  an  opportunity,  and  in  fact  compelled 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     109 

him,  to  examine  it  carefully  according-  to  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Confessions,  and  take  a  stand  in  reg^ard  to  it.  This  is  Dr.  Schmidt's 
merit,  which  can  neither  be  taken  from  him  or  curtailed,  although 
we  may  not  appropriate  all  his  expressions,  for  instance  the  term 
"Crypto-Calvinism"  (secret  Calvinism)  which  was  so  much  re- 
sented, and  yet  is  perfectly  applicable  when  rightly  understood, 
for  which,  however,  we  prefer  to  use  Semi-Calvinism  (a  half-way 
Calvinism). 

In  the  segond  number  of  "Altes  und  Neues"  appeared  an  ar- 
ticle from  the  pen  of  Rev.  Allwardt,  the  first  man  who  stood  up 
publicly  among  the  members  of  the  Missouri  Synod  against  the 
new  doctrine.  To  mark  the  spirit  in  which  he  did  this,  we  here 
quote  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  his  article: 

"The  undersigned  finds  himself  compelled  by  conscience 
to  utter  a  protest  also  on  his  part  against  the  statement  of  the  doc- 
trine of  predestination  in  various  publications  of  the  honorable 
Synod  of  Missouri,  Ohio,  and  adjacent  states,  especially  in  the 
last  two  Reports  of  the  meetings  of  the  Western  District.  After 
two  years  of  conscientious  examination,  with  at  first  the  one  object 
of  finding-  an  agreement  between  this  statement  and  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Confession  of  our  Church,  I  have  come  to  the  firm  con- 
viction that  a  far-reaching  innovation  is  here  found,  an  innovation 
which  touches  very  closely  the  foundation  of  faith,  namely  the 
universality  of  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ;  and  besides  this  also 
the  operation  of  the  means  of  grace,  and  other  parts  of  the  doc- 
trines of  salvation.  It  will  be  clear  to  all  that,  having  this  convic- 
tion, I  dare  not  be  silent.  But  that  I  would  be  compelled  to  give 
public  testimony  in  this  way,  I  myself  did  not  believe  till  the  last 
Report  of  the  Western  District  Synod  came  into  my  hands.  I  am 
a  member  of  the  Synod  and  no  discontented  member,  as  all  who 
have  known  me  for  the  last  fifteen  years  can  testify.  The  differences 
in  doctrine  which  have  arisen  are  not  an  occasion  for  me  to  give 
vent  to  some  secret  spite.  The  Synod  has  never  offended  me,  has 
always  treated  me  kindly  and  well— more  so  than  I  will  ever  be  able 
to  repay,  except  it  be  by  this  earnest  warning  against  great  danger. 
I  thus  at  first  intended  to  show  up  the  error  only  in  the  most  con- 
siderate way,  namely  before  the  Pastoral  Conference,  and  finally 
perhaps  before  the  assembled  Synod.  After  I  had  expressed  my 
doubts  to  the  General  President  in  the  spring  of  1879,  I  laid  them 
before  the  Pastoral  Conference  at  the  close  of  the  sessions  of  the 
Northwestern  District  Synod  in  Milwaukee,,  and  at  first  pointed 


110  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

out  only  one  sentence  in  the  Northern  Report  of  1871,  partly  be- 
cause I  myself  am  a  member  of  this  District,  and  partly  because 
in  this  sentence  lies  the  germ  of  the  entire  development  which  fills 
100  pages  of  the  last  two  Reports  of  the  Western  District.  The 
Conference  directed  me  to  state  my  doubts  in  writing  for  its  next 
session  in  the  fall  and  to  send  a  circular  letter  containing  them  to 
the  members  of  the  Conference  beforehand.  This  I  did,  and  the 
Conference  then  too  devoted  nearly  all  of  its  time  to  this  matter. 
The  meeting  was  quite  animated,  but  not  essentially^ more  so  than 
was  usually  the  case.  I  had  declared  at  the  very  outset  that  I 
considered  the  doctrinal  error  that  had  been  taught  to  be  indeed 
very  dangerous,  yet  that  I  would  neither  try  to  force  matters  nor 
raise  needless  disturbance  about  them.  I  would  be  content  to  wait 
five  or  ten  years,  if  only  the  subject  were  treated  seriously.  We 
reached  no  conclusion  at  this  meeting,  and  it  was  resolved  to  take 
up  the  subject  again  in  the  following  year. — At  the  time  the  Osh- 
kosh  Conference  met,  the  Western  District  Synod  also  convened 
in  St.  Louis ;  and  here,  as  the  Report  shows,  the  matter  was  made 
public.  But,  alas,  in  what  way?  In  the  beginning  of  the  Re- 
port we  indeed  read :  'The  matter  having  been  treated  so  incom- 
pletely (in  1877),  it  was  easy,  especially  for  a  reader  who  had  not 
been  present  at  our  discussion,  to  find  many  dark  and  enigmatical, 
and  even  perhaps  dangerous  things  therein'.  But  this  kindly  way 
of  judging  of  our  opposition  soon  made  way  to  the  worst  possible 
temper  and  at  the  same  time  to  grave  misrepresentations  of  our 
objections.  'These  people  want  to  call  us  to  account  on  the 
ground  that  we  teach  a  false  doctrine  of  predestination.  But 
they  have  no  doctrine  of  predestination  at  all.'  'It  looks  as  if  these 
were  bright  heads  and  humble  spirits  who  speak  thus ;  but  it  only 
looks  so.'  'The  apostles  were  no  such  rationalists  as  to  think 
that  the  certainty  of  election  does  away  with  watching.'  'What  a 
bad  sign,  that  our  opponents  have  not  only  the  papists,  but  among 
them  also  such  a  cunning  and  astute  supporter  for  their  doctrine 
as  this  Bellarmin  is!'  'They  say,  when  according  to  God's  Word 
a  Christian  is  to  work  out  his  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling, 
he  is  to  do  this  with  the  thought:  You  can  and  perhaps  will 
be  lost;  therefore  work  hard  that  you  may  not  be  condemned; 
for  it  all  depends  upon  this  that  you  work  real  hard.'  'But  accord- 
ing to  our  opponents  we  are  to  think  that  it  is  still  an  open  question 
whether  we  will  get  to  heaven  or  to  hell.  No;  here  we  part  com- 
pany.' .  .  .  There  are  many  more  such  uncharitable  utterances. 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Misso2iri  Synod.     Ill 

In  fact  the  Report  at  last  calls  upon  all  openly  to  take  sides!  'He, 
therefore,  who  would  believe  God's  Word,  let  him  come  to  our 
side;  and  he  who  would  make  the  thing-  plausible  to  his- reason, 
let  him  join  those  who  deny  the  certainty  of  election.  But, 
indeed,  how  will  they  fare  who  make  God  out  a  liar.'  This  then 
is  the  war-cry  of  the  brethren  of  the  Western  District!  What 
noware  we  to  do?  Wait  for  further  oral  discussion?  This  would 
be  hopeless;  for  after  such  prejudice  has  been  awakened  against 
us,  and  among  many  it  will  take  root  only  too  quickly,  who  will 
be  left  to  make  an  impartial  examination?  All  who  have  not 
made  themselves  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  questions  at 
issue  will  be  very  much  inclined  to  conclude  from  the  Western 
Report  that  terrible  heresies  lie  at  the  bottom  of  our  views,  even 
though  they  cannot  as  yet  clearly  see  them.  Besides  it  is  so  much 
easier  to  compel  the  disturbers  to  keep  still  or  to  show  them  the 
door  than  to  refute  them  fairly,  especially  if  such  a  refutation  is 
an  impossibility.  While  such  fruitless  attempts  at  coming  to  an 
understanding  orally  would  be  under  way,  the  errors  that  really 
exist  on  the  other  side  would  strike  deeper  root.  Those  who  in 
reality  do  not  sympathize  with  them  would  give  a  convenient  in- 
terpretation to  the  words  and  accomodate  themselves  to  them; 
in  favorable  soil,  however,  they  would  soon  become  so  strong  and 
powerful  that  afterwards  all  warnings  would  be  too  late  .  .  .  May 
no  one  interpret  my  daring  to  attack  this  subject  and  attacking  it 
so  boldly,  as  enmity,  or  pride,  or  anything  of  the  kind.  The  affair 
has  worried  me  now  for  two  years.  I  know  full  well  what  I  risk 
in  making  such  an  attack.  But  I  also  know  that  I  would  have 
to  become  a  cowardly  traitor  to  the  Lutheran  Church  and  to  the 
Confessions  to  which  I  have  sworn  to  adhere,  if  I  should  take  into 
consideration  the  dangers  to  my  position,  and  for  this  reason  be 
silent,  or  speak  as  though  I  were  not  in  earnest.  God  be  merciful 
to  us  all  for  the  sake  of  His  dear  Son.     Amen."     (P.  27  sqq.) 

And  now  what  did  Dr.  Walther  do?  "Prof.  Schmidt  had  sent 
his  papers  only  to  pastors  and  teachers.  He  did  not  want  to  hurl 
the  controversy  among  the  congregations.  Dr.  Walther,  how- 
ever, answered  in  the  'Lutheraner'.  That  is  a  fine  move  (as  in 
chess)'  said  some  one  at  the  time  who  seems  to  know  the  Dr. 
pretty  well,  'he  now  intends  to  work  up  the  congregations  as 
quickly  as  possible.'  True  enough.  And  how  did  he  begin! 
Not  by  stating  the  real  point  in  question  and  by  defending  the 
sentences  attacked  bv  us.     He  formulated  entirely  new  theses, 


112  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

most  of  them  altogether  correct,  while  the  controverted  questions 
are  touched  upon  so  ambiguously  that  they  can  be  understood  in 
either  way.  Moreover,  Dr.  Walther  came  out  already  at  this  time 
with  the  public  falsehood,  that  the  question  in  this  controversy 
was  whether  our  salvation  lay  alone  in  God's  hand,  or  whether 
it  lay  also  in  our  own  hand !  As  long,  and  only  as  long  as  he  man- 
ages to  keep  up  this  deception  will  he  have  the  success  about  which 
alone  he  seems  to  be  concerned."  ("Zeugnis",  p.  238.) — These 
new  theses  we  will  mention  again. 

But  also  in  "Lehre  und  Wehre",  the  theological  monthly  of 
the  Missouri  Synod,  the  agitation  was  begun.  The  February 
number  of  1880  already  brought  the  first  installment  of  a  long 
article  extending  through  live  numbers,  from  the  pen  of  Dr. 
Walther  himself:  "Dogmengeschichtliches  fiber  die  Lehre  vom 
Verhaltnis  des  Glaubens  zur  Gnadenwahl"  (Dogmatico-historical 
Data  on  the  Doctrine  Concerning  the  Relation  of  Faith  to  Elec- 
tion). In  this  article  Dr.  Walther  tries  to  prove,  in  the  first  place, 
what  no  man  conversant  with  the  subject  ever  doubted,  namely, 
that  "our  most  important  later  theologians,  especially  since 
yEgidius  Hunnius,  have  followed  a  different  Tpu-oz  izaideiaq "' 
(Lehrtropus,  mode  of  doctrine)  "in  the  doctrine  concerning  the 
relation  of  faith  to  election  than  Luther,  Rhegius,  and  Chemnitz 
followed"  (p.  65).  With  evident  satisfaction  he  tells  us  how  the 
former  did  not  always  use  the  same  terms  to  designate  their  stand- 
point, and  how  that  acute  theologian  of  Jena,  Johann  Musgeus, 
criticizes  the  terms  used  by  others  to  show  that  they  are  not  alto- 
gether satisfactory.  Dr.  Walther  here  speaks  even  of  a  'differ- 
ence" in  the  "doctrine  itself",  which  he  thinks  is  found  between 
the  theologians  named,  "as  it  always  betrays  a  difference  in  the 
thing  itself"  when  no  general  term  can  be  found  or  agreed  upon 
for  that  which  is  ostensibly  believed  in  common  (?).  And  yet  he 
prints  the  introductory  sentence  of  Musseus,  though  not,  as  so 
much  else  suited  to  his  purpose,  in  italics:  "In  the  article  con- 
cerning predestination  the  theologians  of  our  Church  agree  with 
one  accord,  and  teach  unanimously  over  against  the  Calvinists, 
that  the  decree  of  predestination  is  not  absolute,  but  as  we  in  time 
are  justified  and  saved  tzIttsc,  fide"  (by  faith),  "Rom.  3,  28,  dcd 
TTcVrew?,  per  fidem"  (by  means  of  faith),  "and  t/.  -iVrswcr,  ex  fide" 
(out  of  faith),  "Rom.  3, 11;  Gal.  2, 16;  Eph.  2,  8,  so  God  also  from 
eternity,  in  view  of  forseen  faith  (intuitu  praevisse  fidei)  has  chosen 
and  ordained  unto  eternal  life  all  who  in  time  will  be  justified  and 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     113 

saved  by  faith.  Herein,  we  say,  all  orthodox  theologians  on  our 
side  are  united."  (P.  49  sq.)  From  this,  at  any  rate,  it  can  be  seen 
what  Musgeus  took  to  be  the  fundamental  and  chief  difference 
between  Calvinists  and  Lutherans  on  this  point.  Dr.  Walther  also 
does  not  as  yet  dare  to  accuse  him  and  all  our  leading  theologians 
since  the  Formula  of  Concord  outright  of  teaching  false  doctrine, 
although  the  assertion  referred  to  above,  concerning  the  difference 
in  the  doctrine  itself,  seems  to  point  in  this  direction,  and,  if  taken 
strictly,  must  lead  to  this.  On  the  contrary,  he  still  asserts: 
"They  were  far  from  attempting  to  change  in  any  way  the  pure 
biblical  and  symbolical  doctrine  of  predestination  by  the  c}uestion- 
able  term  'intuitu  fidei'.  Far  from  any  such  thought,  they  held 
fast  to  this  doctrine  with  all  earnestness,  and  rejected  every  Pe- 
lagian and  synergistic  idea  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination." 
(P.  98.) 

Evidently  Dr.  Walther  in  this  article  intended  to  discredit 
as  much  as  possible  that  formulation  of  the  doctrine,  concerning 
an  election  in  view  of  faith,  which  had  hitherto  been  used  in  the 
Lutheran  Church,  at  least  since  the  Formula  of  Concord,  almost 
exclusively,  and  to  gain  for  his  formulation  of  the  doctrine,  con- 
cerning an  election  unto  faith,  which  for  centuries  had  been  taught 
almost  exclusively  by  the  Calvinists,  tolerance  at  least  within  the 
Lutheran  Church  of  America.  He  therefore  says  concerning  his 
"opponents":  "Even  though  these  continue  to  regard  and  de- 
clare that  type  of  doctrine  to  be  questionable  which  makes  faith 
flow  from  election  and  does  not  in  signo  rationis  (in  idea)  make 
it  precede  election,  and  though  they  suppose  it  might  lead  the 
careless  into  Calvinism,  and  therefore  repudiate  it  as  liable  to  mis- 
construction: this  gives  them  no  right  at  all  to  berate  those  who 
use  this  type  of  doctrine  as  one  altogether  in  harmony  with  the 
Scriptures,  and  no  right  to  call  them  heretics,  i.  e.  crypto-Calvin- 
ists;  just  as  little  as  these  have  the  right  to  call  those  heretics,  i.  e. 
Pelagians  and  synergists,  who  hold  fast  to  the  'intuitu  fidei'  and  to 
the  doctrine  that  faith  in  signo  rationis  'precedes'  the  decree  of 
election;  that  is,  if  these  at  the  same  time  hold  fast  in  full  earnest- 
ness to  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  Confession  describing  election 
as  an  act  of  grace,  and  repudiate  positively  and  condemn  heartily 
every  Pelagian  and  synergistic  idea  of  an  election  conditioned  on 
man's  activity."  He  declares,  as  regards  himself  and  his  like- 
minded  friends,  that  "they  hereby  hold  fast  with  all  earnestness 
the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  the  Confessions  of  an  ordered  elec- 


114  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

tion,  and  positively  repudiate  and  lieartily  condemn  every  Calvin- 
istic  notion  of  an  absolute  predestination."  He  agrees  with 
Hiilsemann  in  this  that  "the  object  in  the  divine  predestination 
is  the  future  believer,  or  he  of  whom  God  has  foreseen  that  he 
would  believe,  that  he  would  believe,  however,  throus^h  the  .a^race 
of  Him  who  has  foreseen  him,  and  this  an  efficacious  grace."  He 
thus  does  not  consider  the  object  of  election  to  be  man  without 
regard  to  his  faith.  On  the  other  hand,  he  rejects  as  Calvinism 
"the  decree,  that  the  efficacious  or  irresistible  grace  depends  upon 
the  sole  or  absolute  pleasure  of  God,  according  to  which  He 
has  determined  absolutely  and  without  any  other  cause  not  to 
give  to  others,  that  is  to  most  men,  this  kind  of  grace."  And 
here  it  "seems"  to  him  "lies  the  point  from  which  an  understand- 
ing might  be  reached  with  those  who  are  wrapped  up  neither  in 
Calvinistic  nor  synergistic  views."  (P.  08  sq.)  Would  that  he  had 
acted  according  to  these  words  before  this  and  later  on!  Then  at 
least  would  this  lamentable  doctrinal  controversy  have  arisen 
through  no  fault  of  his.  But  we  have  only  to  compare  what  has 
been  set  forth  in  the  preceding  parts  of  this  work,  and  what  is 
quoted  in  the  present  section  from  the  Reports  of  the  Western 
District  for  '77  and  '79  to  see  the  great  difference  between  what 
the  "opponents"  found  objectionable  and  attacked  in  them,  and 
what  is  here  said  by  Dr.  Walther;  and  this  just  as  much  as  regards 
the  doctrinal  position,  as  also  the  treatment  accorded  to  the  "op- 
ponents". The  appearance  of  "Altes  und  Neues",  the  proof  of 
an  independence  and  frankness  hitherto  altogether  unknown  in 
the  Missouri  Synod  and  the  Synodical  Conference,  at  first  evi- 
dentlv  awakened  a  feeling  of  uncertainty  and  anxiety  in  St.  Louis, 
and  for  this  reason  it  was  thought  best  to  assume  a  milder  tone. 
But  how  entirely  right  they  were  who  did  not  permit  this  to  divert 
them  from  their  purely  objective  contention  against  the  manifest 
standpoint  of  modern  Missouri,  was  apparent  from  what  soon 
followed.  For  "Lehre  und  Wehre"  now  brought  one  article  after 
another  attempting  to  show  that  the  doctrine  hitherto  universally 
taught  in  the  Lutheran  Church  was  contrary  to  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Confessions;  and  these  attempts  were  made  with  increas- 
ing boldness. 

Already  in  the  March  number  of  this  periodical  for  the  same 
year,  we  find,  immediately  after  the  continuation  of  Dr.  Walther's 
article,  a  communication  from  Prof.  A.  L.  Grabner,  at  that  time 
still  a  member  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod,  attempting  to  controvert 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Sj'nod.     115 

the  assertion  of  Ouenstedt  made  in  harmony  with  the  rest  of  our 
old  dogmaticians,  and  regarded  as  a  fundamental  position  of  faith- 
ful Luthernnism,  viz:  "Consequently  -/>'yvw^[?"  (foreknowing, 
Rom.  8,  29)  "is  not  election.  This  must  be  noted  against  the  Cal- 
vinists."  And  he  also  defends  the  sentence  from  the  Report  of 
'77  (p.  37) :  "Election  and  foresight  is  one  and  the  same  thing." 
Compare  with  this  what  has  been  quoted  above  as  the  former  doc- 
trine of  Missouri,  from  the  pen  of  Rev.  Fiirbringer  and  of  Dr. 
A\'alther  (p.  56  sqq. ;    65). 

In  the  May  number  we  find  an  article  by  Rev.  Stockhardt, 
"written  at  the  request  of  the  St.  Louis  Pastoral  Conference",  in 
which  as  his  theme  he  answers  the  question:  "Does  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  teach  an  'election  in  the  wider  sense'?"  nega- 
tively. He  admits  and  even  asserts  outright  and  positively:  "In 
§§  13-24"  (Jacobs'  Transl.  of  the  Symbol.  Books  p.  652  sq.)  "is 
given  a  complete  definition"  (vollstandige  Begriffsbestimmung) 
"of  the  eternal  election  of  God"  (p.  139;  compare  p.  110:  "From 
the  foregoing  division  of  the  11th  article  it  is  apparent  in  which 
part  we  must  look  especially  for  the  definition  of  election,  namely 
in  the  passage  §  13-24").  In  spite  of  this  he  tries  to  prove  from  the 
Confession  itself  that  it  does  not,  as  we  assume  with  our  old 
authorities  in  the  Church  (compare  above  p.  39  sqq.),  teach  an 
election  in  the  wider  sense.  Indeed  these  very  §§,  especially  the 
"introduction",  §§  13  and  14,  and  the  "concluding  clause",  §§  23 
and  24,  in  his  opinion,  show  this  clearly.  And  how  does  he  seek 
to  make  this  plausible?  By  undertaking  to  demonstrate  from  the 
passages  quoted  in  §  14,  Rom.  8,  and  Eph.  1,  which  he  takes  as 
treating  "only  of  God's  counsel  regarding  the  elect",  and  not  "of 
universal  redemption,  vocation,  and  justification"  (compare  for 
the  interpretation  of  these  passages  "Theologische  Zeitblatter" 
Vol.  III.,  p.  328  sqq.,  1884),  that  the  Confession  speaks  in  this 
paragraph  only  of  the  elect,  or  of  the  way  "upon  which  God  has 
resolved  to  lead  the  elect."  It  is  very  significant  that  the  third 
passage  quoted  by  the  Confession,  namely  Matt.  22,  1  sqq.,  is  al- 
together disregarded,  as  it  would  overthrow  the  whole  pretended 
demonstration,  since  it  evidently  treats  of  the  way  of  salvation  in 
so  far  as  it  exists  for  all  men!  But  is  it  not,  to  begin  with,  a  clear 
proof  for  the  anti-Biblical  and  anti-confessional  character  of  the 
modern  Missourian  doctrine  of  election,  when  in  its  definition  it 
cannot  use  this  fundamental  passage  of  Scripture,  which  Chem- 
nitz for  instance 'always  puts  into  the  very  first  place  (compare 


116  The  Presoit  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

"Zeitblatter"  III.,  333  sqq.,  and  especially  Chemnitz,  Enchiridion, 
printed  in  Frank's  "Theologie  der  Konkordienformel",  IV.,  327 
sqq.,  and  republished  by  A.  L.  Grabner,  G.  Brumder,  Milwaukee, 
1886),  but  must  pass  it  by  in  silence?  By  this  perversion,  of  the 
introduction,  §§  13  and  14,  naturally  all  that  follows  also  comes 
to  have  a  false  and  perverted  appearance.  These  parag-raphs  are 
said  to  contain  nothing  but  "an  explicit  and  complete  declaration 
and  enumeration  of  the  acts  of  God's  will  in  regard  to  the  elect." 
§15  and  21  are  especialy  submitted  to  a  process  of  twisting  and 
quibbling,  so  as  to  make  them  agree  with  the  above  assertion. 
Indeed,  even  the  Enchiridion  of  Chemnitz,  the  basis  of  Article 
XI.  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  is  called  upon  to  prove  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  interpretation  given.  But  Rev.  Stockhardt  is 
very  careful  not  to  quote  the  passages  from  the  Enchiridion  cited 
by  us  above  (p.  47  sq.),  since  these  give  the  clearest  possible  testi- 
mony against  his  misinterpretation  of  the  Confession,  and  prove 
conclusively  also  that  the  words  in  §  23,  "prepared  salvation  .  .  . 
in  general",  designate  the  universal  way  of  salvation  for  all  men, 
and  not  for  the  elect  alone. — The  result  of  Rev.  Stockhardt's  in- 
vestigation is  the  following:  "We  see  that  all  talk  of  an  'election 
in  the  wider  sense'  taught  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  is  only  a 
human  figment  which  vanishes  when  submitted  to  the  clear,  pre- 
cise words  of  the  Confession."  Indeed,  fine  "clear,  precise  words", 
obtained  by  merely  omitting  what  clearly  contradicts  them,  and 
by  perverting  the  rest!  In  this  way  a  man  could  prove  any- 
thing. Besides,  Rev.  Stockhardt  falsely  imputes  to  those  who 
teach  an  election  in  the  wider  sense  the  folly  of  speaking  about  a 
"choice  which  is  said  to  concern  all  men",  and  then  proceeds  with 
great  superciliousness  to  talk  about  a  "contradictio  in  adjecto", 
an  "impossibility",  and  "a  self-contradictory  idea."  Is  it  possible 
that  he  did  not  know  what  has  been  understood  for  now  300  years 
in  the  Lutheran  Church  by  "election  in  the  wider  sense",  namely 
not  a  self-contradictory  "choice  of  all  men  unto  salvation",  but, 
for  one  thing,  the  choice  and  institution  of  the  universal  way  of 
salvation,  and  for  another,  the  choice  of  those  persons  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  will  permit  themselves  to 
be  led  upon  this  universal  way  of  salvation  unto  salvation  (com- 
pare above  p.  48  sqq.)?  If  he  did  not  know  this,  he  should  not 
attempt  to  controvert  and  ridicule  what  he  does  not  know.  If  he 
did  know  it,  how  could  he  in  honesty  speak  as  he  did? — "The 
eternal  election  of  God  is  the  wonderful  mystery  hovering  over 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     117 

certain  persons"— this  is  what  our  Confession  teaches  accordin.s: 
to  Rev.  Stockhardt  (p.  147). 

This  same  Missourian  champion  has  also  attempted  to  bring 
in  "Lehre  und  Wehre"  the  modern  Missourian  "Scripture  proof 
for  the  doctrine  of  election"  (p.  176  sqq.).  Of  course,  we  cannot 
discuss  this  whole  matter  here,  but  must  refer  our  readers  to  what 
has  been  said  in  former  volumes  of  the  "Theologische  Zeitblatter" 
(for  instance. Vol.  I.,  21  sqq.;  93  sqq.;  III.,  321  sqq.;  VIII.,  80 
sqq.).  Only  a  few  things,  necessarily  belonging  to  the  "history 
and  proper  estimate"  of  the  controversy  on  predestination,  can 
here  receive  our  attention. 

First  of  all,  Rev.  Stockhardt  of  course  attempts  to  demon- 
strate that  the  meaning  of  the  words  -pi>Yv>6<T/.zry  and  -poyjiurn^ 
(foreseeing  or  foreknowing),  as  held  for  300  years  in  opposition 
to  the  Reformed  view,  is  incorrect,  and  that  the  Reformed  mean- 
ing of  these  words  is  correct,  as  Prof.  Grabner  (p.  73  sqq.)  and 
Dr.  Walther  (p.  129  sqq.)  had  already  attempted.  And  in  this  he 
claims  to  have  "the  very  latest  and,  as  universally  acknowledged, 
the  most  weighty  linguists"  on  his  side.  As  such  he  names  von 
Hofmann,  Cremer,  and  Grimm.  It  is  peculiar  to  begin  with  that 
Hofmann  is  here  placed  above  Meyer  and  Philippi,  that  Hofmann, 
who,  in  spite  of  much  that  is  suggestive  in  his  work,  often  as  re- 
gards the  language,  goes  to  work  in  his  exegesis,  more  arbitrarily 
than  any  other  exegete,  as  Rev.  Stockhardt  himself  (p.  183)  on  one 
occasion,  where  Hofmann  did  not  happen  to  agree  with  him, 
accuses  him:  "Hofmann  emancipates  himself  from  all  rules  of 
language."  Grimm,  however,  explains  yv^uxr/.o)  by,  "acknowl- 
edging a  person  worthy  of  one's  company  or  love,"  which  explana- 
tion Rev.  Stockhardt,  of  course,  has  to  twist  and  alter  in  its  es- 
sential features  before  it  can  be  utilized  for  his  purpose.  And 
thus  Cremer  alone  remains,  who  indeed  is  an  authority  in  the 
field  of  Biblical  philology  of  the  New  Testament.  In  what  he 
says  on  -poyvjwa/.z'.v  he  indeed  appears,  at  least  in  part,  to  agree 
with  Rev.  Stockhardt,  and  with  modern  Missouri  in  general.  For 
he  takes  -poYvwav.tv^  as  a  synonj-m  of  iyMyzs^'^at,  and  this  as  a 
term  for  "the  union  of  God  with  the  'objects  of  the  counsel  of  sal- 
vation, which  union  is  established  already  in  this  counsel  and 
therefore  exists  already  before  its  consummation";  it  "includes 
essentially  a  self-determination  of  God  toward  this  communion." 
But  at  the  same  time  he  refers  back  to  the  simple  form  yivaitrxio, 
according  to  which  -/tiryryuxrxuj  must  be  interpreted.     And  how 


118  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

does  he  explain  the  former?  "Not  infrequently  yv^wn/.tv^  in  New 
Testament  Greek  designates  a  personal  relation  of  the  intelligent 
subject  to  the  object  cognized,  as  much  as  being  determined  by 
the  cognition  of  an  object,  permitting  oneself  to  be  determined 
thereby,  namely  in  that  something  is  cognized  in  so  far  as  it  is  of 
importance  for  the  person  cognizing  it,  influencing  him,  and 
thus  calling  out  on  the  part  of  the  cognizing  subject  a  certain 
relation  to  the  object  cognized."  "To  understand  the  single  ex- 
pressions both  must  be  held  fast,  that  in  Yv^wfj/.tvj  is  brought  out 
the  importance  of  the  object  cognized  for  him  cognizing  it,  and  at 
the  same  time  the  determining  influence  proceeding  from  the 
object  to  the  subject.  The  positive  Yr^w(7y.zv^  r:v«  signifies  that 
the  basis  of  a  union,  and  with  it  at  once  the  union  itself,  exits,  that 
the  object  is  not  alien  to  the  subject,  but  well-known  to  it,  i.  e.  in- 
timate with  it."  Cremer,  therefore,  takes  the  word  spoken  of 
quite  like  Grimm,  i.  e.  he  takes  as  a  basis  and  point  of  departure  for 
that  which  is  designated  by  it,  a  real  cognition,  or,  as  it  may  be, 
a  precognition,  thus  an  act  of  the  intellect,  more  particularly  of 
the  omniscience  of  God.  And  we  can  be  satisfied  with  this  ex- 
planation ;  for  this  does  not  really  say  more  than  our  old  teachers 
who  speak  of  a  cognoscere  cum  affectu  et  effectu,  i.  e.  of  a  cog- 
nition combined  with  an  energetic  love;  only  Cremer  lays  more 
stress  upon  this  accompanying  love,  which  also  in  his  opinion 
results  from  the  cognition,  than  upon  the  cognition  itself  which 
in  thought  precedes  the  love  as  its  source  and  cause,  while  our  old 
teachers,  in  opposition  to  the  Calvinistic  absolute  predestination, 
generally  did  the  opposite  (compare  "Zeitblatter"  IIL,  p.  325  sqq.). 
Thus  the  "weighty  linguist"  Cremer  does  not  at  all  favor  the 
modern  Missourian  view.  Indeed,  this  cannot  be  claimed  with 
certainty  even  of  Hofmann.  For  not  only  does  he  declare  that 
choosing  in  advance  is  "an  idea  far  removed  from  yf>(0(Ty.scv" 
(Romans,  p.  348),  but  he  also  understands  by  TzpoyivMtr/.Ev^  "an 
act  which  directs  itself  in  an  appropriating  manner  to  the  object 
cognized  before  its  existence,  making  it  in  advance  an  object  of 
cognition,  as  one  cognizes  what  is  akin  or  of  the  same  nature  as 
oneself";  and  he  here  rejects  only  a  cognition  which  is  "nothing 
but  a  mere  knowing  of  the  object  cognized,  or  a  perception  of  its 
nature",  since  "real  cognition  is  an  act  of  appropriation  aiming 
at  acquaintance  with  things  akin."  Perhaps  he  means  the  same 
thing  as  Cremer;  at  least  his  words  can  so  be  understood. 

In  this  discussion  of  Eph.  1,  4  we  read  (p.  230):     "Election 


The  Doctyine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     119 

is  in  so  far  mediated  by  Christ,  the  Redeemer,  as  Christ  by  His 
redemption  and  His  merit  has  made  it  possible  for  God  at  all  to 
elect  sinful  men.  We  are  chosen  in  Christ,  through  Christ,  for 
Christ's  sake.  This  is  what  St.  Paul  teaches,  and  nothing  more. 
If  we  were  to  add  to  the  words  'in  Christ"  the  further  words  'inas- 
much as  He  is  our  own  through  faith,  inasmuch  as  God  has  fore- 
seen faith  in  Christ',  this  addition  would  be  an  unwarranted 
gloss,  just  as  the  exegesis'  'us  who  are  in  Christ',  which  puts  in 
a  thought  not  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  themselves.  We  would 
do  violence  to  the  Scriptures,  and  mix  the  clear  utterances  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  with  human  opinions,  if  we  would  try  to  deduce  and 
to  demostrate  this  theory  of  God's  foreseeing  faith  from  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  Scriptures  neither  here  nor  elsewhere  say  a  word  of 
this.  Of  course,  according  to  the  Scriptures  faith  l^elongs  to  the 
order  of  election — this  order  rightly  understood.  We  shall  see  in 
the  discussion  of  theses  6  and  7  that  God  included  faith  in  His 
eternal  counsel  of  predestination;  that,  when  He  chose  us  unto 
salvation,  He  at  the  same  time  determined  to  save  us  only  by 
faith,  and  in  no  other  way,  and  to  bring  us  unto  saving  faith. 
We  too  protest  against  having  faith  excluded  from  the  eternal 
election  and  predestination  of  God.  But  we  deny  that  the  Scrip- 
tures regard  faith  as  foreseen  and  place  it  as  a  premise  prior  to 
election.  This  is  and  remains  a  human  thought  against  which 
the  language  of  the  Scriptures  rebels."  This  is  certainly  clear 
and  precise,  but  just  as  certainly  an  open  abandonment  of  the  Lu- 
theran position  for  the  past  300  years  over  against  the  Reformed, 
and  an  acceptance  of  the  position  of  the  latter  on  this  point. 

On  page  232  we  read:  "The  Scriptures  exclude  all  con- 
sideration of  man's  conduct  in  that  they  describe  the  election  or 
predestination  of  God  as  a  free  act  of  God's  will  grounded  only 
in  God  Himself,  in  Christ."  It  is  singular  that  modern  Missouri 
bases  the  election,  as  the  choice  or  selection  of  certain  persons 
in  preference  to  others,  upon  Christ,  and  does  this  without  God's 
having  seen  or  regarded  in  this  choice  whether  these  persons 
would  receive  Christ's  merits  in  faith,  or  not.  Can  Christ  and  His 
merit,  inasmuch  as  it  exists  for  all,  and  for  all  in  the  same  way, 
be  a  reason  for  this  choice  or  selection?  Here  surely  is  a  real 
"contradictio  in  adjecto,"  an  "impossibility,"  a  "self-contradict- 
ory idea."  Evidently  an  election  "in  Christ"  does  not  at  all  fit  into 
the  modern  Missourian  system,  which  as  to  its  basis  and  main  ten- 
dency is  none  other  than  that  of  the  Calvinists,  and  in  reality 


120  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

takes  Christ's  redemption  only  as  a  means  for  carrying  out  the 
choice  which  also  precedes  it  in  thought,  as  it  does  this  out- 
spokenly with  faith  and  justification.  In  the  interpretation  of 
2  Thess.  2,  13  (compare  "Zeitblatter"  I,  93  sqq.)  we  read:  "We 
shall  therefore  proceed  more  safely,  if  we  forsake  the  interpreta- 
tion 'unto  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  unto  belief  of  the  truth,'  " 
contrary  to  the  Report  of  '77  (above  p.  74  sq.);  but  in  a  round- 
about way  the  same  sense  is  reached  which,  however,  in  spite  of 
all  the  trouble  taken  is  not  established  as  lying  necessarily  in  the 
words.  On  page  271  we  read:  "Thesis  6  has  shown  that  God 
has  predestinated  us  unto  faith,  unto  adoption,  unto  justifica- 
tion, that  God,  when  in  eternity  He  chose  us  unto  everlasting  life, 
has  at  the  same  time  determined  to  sanctify  us  by  His  Spirit,  and 
to  bring  us  unto  faith,  and  thus  to  lead  us  through  faith  unto  sal- 
vation. From  this  it  follows  of  itself  that  God,  when  now  in  time 
He  sanctifies  us  by  His  Spirit,  calls  us,  converts  us,  i.  e.  makes  us 
believe,  justifies  us,  thereby  carries  out  His  decree  of  predestina- 
tion; that  our  vocation,  conversion,  justification,  as  well  as  our 
salvation  is  a  necessary  result  of  our  election,  resting  upon  the 
latter."  According  to  this  it  seems  as  though  we  would  have  to 
say  of  every  believer  that  he  is  one  of  the  elect;  for  the  faith 
wrought  in  time  is  called  in  a  general  way  "a  necessary  result  of 
predestination,"  and  described  as  a  carrying  out  of  this  predestina- 
tion. On  page  280  the  following  is  set  forth  as  "clear  Scripture 
doctrine":  "The  eternal  election  and  predestination  of  God  is  a 
cause,  and  that  too  the  ultimate  cause  as  well  of  our  salvation,  as 
also  of  all  that  pertains  to  our  salvation,  of  our  vocation,  of  our 
justification,  of  our  faith,  of  our  perseverance."  So  then,  let  it 
be  well  noted,  that  not  God's  universal  love  for  sinners  without 
exception  is  the  real  and  ultimate  cause  when  a  sinner  believes 
and  is  saved,  but  the  particular  grace  of  election  which  from  the 
start,  without  any  regard  to  man's  conduct,  embraces  only  com- 
paratively few!  Can  every  poor  sinner  truly  and  without  self- 
deception  rejoice  at  this,  and  comfort  himself  with  the  thought 
that  he  too  can  be  saved,  as  long  as  being  saved  does  not  depend 
upon  what  is  given  for  all,  but  upon  what  in  its  nature  and  pur- 
pose and  from  the  start  is  intended  only  for  a  few?  Is  this  not 
again  a  real  contradictio  in  adjecto?  Assuredly  it  is.  But  that 
same  Rev.  Stockhardt  who,  where  it  suits  him,  so  abhors  a  con- 
tradictio in  adjecto,  must  acknowledge  one  here,  unless  he  would 
abandon  his  entire  modern  Missourian  system,  or  acknowledge 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     121 

that  he  here  teaches  the  completest  Calvinism.  And  so  in  his  11th 
thesis  (p.  306  sq.)  he  directs  him  who  is  in  trouble  about  his  elec- 
tion, to  "the  universal  Gospel  of  Christ,"  from  which,  according 
to  his  doctrine,  the  choice  of  those  who  alone  and  infallibly  will  be 
saved  does  not  at  all  follow,  which  with  its  universal  love  of  God 
proclaimed  unto  all  sinners  is  not  at  all  the  last  and  ultimate  foun- 
dation of  salvation.  "And  thus  we  are  to  know  our  election  from 
the  Gospel.  It  is  true,  also  the  non-elect,  those  who  believe 
for  a  time,  hear  the  Gospel.  But  we  reject  as  a  speculation 
of  reason  this  conclusion,  that  because  also  unbelievers,  persistent 
rejectors,  and  temporary  believers  hear  this  Gospel,  therefore  one 
cannot  with  certainty  be  convinced  of  his  election  from  the 
Gospel."  But  can  we  imagine  a  sober  Christian,  under  the  spell 
neither  of  fanaticism  nor  of  egotism,  who  in  all  seriousness  could 
draw  this  conclusion  and  comfort  himself  in  real  anxiety  with 
the  thought:  As  of  all  men  to  whom  God  in  the  Gospel  pro- 
claims forgiveness  of  sin,  life,  and  salvation  only  the  smallest 
number  obtain  persevering  faith  and  therewith  salvation,  namely 
those  who  are  chosen  from  among  all  mankind  without  the  least 
regard  to  faith  and  conduct,  according  to  a  mysterious  pleasure 
of  God;  and  as  I  now  belong  to  this  whole  number  of  mankind, 
and  have  also  the  beginning  of  faith:  therefore  I  also  belong 
surely  and  certainly  to  the  small  number  of  the  elect?  This  cer- 
tainly would  be  no  "speculation  of  reason,"  but  such  evident  non- 
sense and  contradiction  that  one  can  hardly  suppose  a  sensible 
man  capable  of  it. 


IIL 

THE   DOCTRINE   OF   PREDESTINATION   IN   THE 
MISSOURI  SYNOD. 


S.    THE  GENERAL  PASTORAL  CONFERENCE  IN  THE  AUTUMN  OF  1880. 

"Whereas  nothing-  has  hitherto  been  done  on  the  part  of  the 
Synodical  Conference  to  settle  the  controversy  that  has  arisen 
with  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination;  whereas,  accord- 
ingly, nothing  remains  for  us  but  to  attempt  to  restore  unity  of 
doctrine  at  least  in  our  own  Synod;  whereas,  finally,  circum- 
stances also  appear  to  make  further  delay  unwise;  therefore  the 
undersigned,  at  the  request  of  the  Pastoral  Conferences  of  Chica- 
go and  St.  Louis  assumes  the  responsibility  of  herewith  inviting 
all  pastors  and  professors,  for  the  objects  stated,  to  an  extra  meet- 
ing of  the  General  Pastoral  Conference,  on  the  29th  of  Sep- 
tember of  the  present  year,  in  the  church  of  Rev.  A.  Wagner  of 
Chicago,  111."  Thus  began  the  introduction  to  the  "Invitation" 
which  "was  issued  by  letter  in  September,  1880,  to  all  the  pastors 
and  professors  of  the  'German  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of 
Missouri,  Ohio  and  adj.  States,'  signed  by  the  General  President 
of  the  Synod,  Rev.  H.  C.  Schwan.  In  answer  to  this  invitation 
there  assembled  at  the  appointed  time  in  Chicago  "from  the  min- 
isterium  of  the  Missouri  Synod  431,  and  from  the  laity  of  the  Mis- 
souri Synod  20  persons,  from  the  other  Synods  16  persons,"  al- 
together according  to  the  signatures  received  467  persons.  And 
the  "remark"  added  to  this  enumeration  in  the  published  minutes 
tells  us  that:  "These  figures  would  be  still  higher  if  all  present 
had  complied  with  the  request  of  the  Conference  and  had  entered 
their  names  in  the  lists  presented  for  signature."  Thus  a  mighty 
convention  assembled,  exceeded  in  numbers  as  well  as  in  im- 
portance by  few  that  have  taken  place  within  the  church.  Alas, 
that  its  results  were  not  more  satisfactory! 

After  conferring  for  a  long  time  at  the  beginning  of  the  pro- 
ceedings about  the  course  to  be  pursued  in  the  discussion,  it  was 
finally  resolved,  especially  at  the  instance  of  Dr.  Walther  "to 

(122) 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     128 

take  up  Article  XI  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  for  discussion," 
"since  evidently  the  whole  controversy  has  arisen  from  the  dif- 
ferent interpretations  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  since  there  is 
no  one  among  us  who  does  not  mean  to  agree  with  the  Confes- 
sion." As  to  the  first  two  paragraphs  of  the  Confession  all  natur- 
ally at  once  found  themselves  in  agreement:  but  in  paragraphs  3 
to  5  the  difference  between  the  two  views  represented  in  the  Con- 
ference already  began  to  come  to  the  surface.  Dr.  Walther  claimed 
that  §  5  ("But  the  eternal  election  of  God,  or  predestination,  i.e. 
God's  appointment  to  salvation,  pertains  not  at  the  same  time 
to  the  godly  and  the  wicked,  but  only  to  the  children  of  God,  who 
were  elected  and  appointed  to  eternal  life  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world  was  laid,  as  Paul  says  (Eph.  1,  4.  5.) :  'He  hath  chosen 
us  in  Him,  having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  children 
by  Christ  Jesus")  demonstrated  "most  clearly"  "that  the  Formula 
of  Concord  speaks  only  of  election  in  the  so-called  narrower 
sense"  ("Verhandlungen  der  Allgemeinen  Pastoralkonferenz 
fiber  die  Lehre  von  der  Gnadenwahl"  —  Report  of  the  General 
Pastoral  Conference  of  the  Synod  of  Missouri,  Ohio  and  adj. 
States  Concerning  the  Doctrine  of  Predestination.  Chicago,  111., 
from  September  29  till  October  5.  1880.— St.  Louis,  Mo.,  Con- 
cordia Publishing  House,  1880.  Page  13.)  Thus  already  these 
introductory  paragraphs  which  simply  mean  to  warn  the  reader 
against  confusing  predestination  with  God's  foresight  and  fore- 
knowledge, and  to  state  the  difference  between  the  two  (see  above 
p.  39  sq.),  were  to  decide  what  the  Confession  understands  and  em- 
braces by  election,  in  contradiction  to  the  clear  line  of  thought  in 
the  Confession  (see  above  p.  39-45)  and  to  its  interpretation  by  our 
most  prominent  theologians  since  the  adoption  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  for  instance  of  /Egidius  Hunnius  (1550-1G03)  and 
Leonhard  Hutter  (15(33-1010;  see  above  p.  50  sqq.).  Those  mem- 
bers of  the  Conference,  however,  who  were  determined  to  adhere 
for  conscience'  sake  to  the  view  which  for  300  years,  that  is  at  all 
times,  had  been  in  reality  the  only  accepted  view  in  the  Lutheran 
Church,  held  fast  likewise  to  the  interpretation  which  had  always 
prevailed  in  the  Lutheran  Church  as  being  alone  in  harmony 
with  the  language  and  with  the  plain  object  of  the  Confession, 
namely  that  in  §§  13-24  the  authentic  statement  is  given  of 
what  is  comprised  in  election,  and  in  what  sense  election  is 
here  taken.  The  great  majority  of  the  Conference  agreed  from 
the  outset  with  Dr.  Walther,  at  least  in  this  that  his  "opponents" 


124  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

could  not  be  right  in  disagreeing  with  him.  It  was  humorous  in 
one  respect,  and  yet  sad  in  another,  to  see  how  those  who  felt 
themselves  compelled  to  speak  in  favor  of  Dr.  Walther's  position, 
set  up  the  most  contradictory  statements  as  soon  as  they  under- 
took to  put  something  in  place  of  the  assertions  of  the  "op- 
ponents." It  was  also  significant  that  hardly  one  of  these  would- 
be  champions  of  orthodoxy  appeared  to  know  what  had  been  un- 
derstood in  the  Lutheran  Church  for  nearly  300  years  by  election 
in  the  wider  sense;  indeed,  most  of  them  spoke  as  if  they  naively 
believed  that  the  wicked  "opponents"  had  just  invented  this  ex- 
pression (compare  above  p.  116).  One  of  them  said :  "If  the  dis- 
tinction between  a  wider  and  a  narrower  election  were  right,  we 
would  have  to  say  that  even  temporary  believers  are  elected — 
something  that  certainly  no  one  would  assert,"  ("Verhandlungen, 
etc.,"  p.  20) — as  though  any  man  had  ever  spoken  of  a  "wider  and 
a  narrower  election,"  especially  in  the  sense  of  this  theologian. 
Another  then  claimed:  "If  election  also  includes  the  ordination 
of  the  means  of  grace,  then  pure  Calvinism  must  be  the  outcome. 
Paragraph  5  says  distinctly  that  predestination  pertains  only  to 
those  who  are  appointed  unto  eternal  life.  But  if  the  choice  of 
means  were  also  included,  this  would  say  that  the  order  of  means 
also  pertains  only  to  the  children  of  God"  (p.  27).  And  even  a 
professor  in  the  St.  Louis  Seminary  ventured  to  declare:  "It  is 
claimed  on  the  one  hand"  (i.  e.  in  his  opinion,  by  the  "opponents") 
"that  election  is  chiefly  the  ordination  of  the  means  of  grace  which 
are  intended  for  all  men.  This  is  said  to  be  election  in  the  widei 
sense.  Again  it  is  claimed  that  election  embraces  the  persons 
who  are  saved.  This  is  said  to  be  election  in  the  narrower  sense. 
Here  we  evidently  have  two  different  elections". ("Verhandlungen, 
etc.,"  p.  24) — a  plain  demonstration  that  these  two  also  did  not, 
or  would  not,  know  what  is  understood  by  election  in  the  wider 
sense,  and  how  it  is  distinguished  from  election  in  the  narrower 
sense,  and  this  not  merely  since  1880,  but  for  some  300  years,  and 
not  merely  among  the  "opponents,"  but  in  the  Lutheran  Church 
generally. 

At  the  end  of  the  fourth  session  it  was  finally  "resolved  for  the 
sake  of  the  opponents  to  change  the  order  that  had  been  adopted, 
and  to  continue  the  discussion  with  §  13  sqq.  But  this  must  not 
be  understood  as  if  the  "opponents"  did  not  want  to  discuss 
or  subscribe  the  previous  §§.  They  simply  protested  against  ac- 
knowledging §§  3-5  as  a  definition  of  election  in  the  sense  of 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     125 

the  Confession,  and  against  subscribing  to  these  §§  with  this 
understanding-.  They  found  this  definition  as  did  the  old 
theologians  in  §§  15-23.  At  the  beginning  of  the  next,  the  fifth, 
session  the  politic  resolution  was  offered  by  one  of  the  most  emi- 
nent members  of  the  Synod:  "Let  it  be  resolved,  so  as  not  to 
lengthen  the  discussion  unnecessarily,  that  mainly  those  who 
have  given  the  subject  in  hand  thorough  study,  conduct  the  de- 
bate on  either  side.  Hence  Dr.  Walther  should  speak  chiefly  on 
the  one  side."  The  gentleman  had  noticed  that  the  seeming 
allies  of  Dr.  Walther,  partly  by  their  contradictory  statements, 
and  partly  by  betraying  the  greatest  ignorance  concerning  the 
subject  in  hand,  only  helped  to  hurt  the  cause  they  wished  to  aid. 
Dr.  Walther  did  not  formally  accept  the  honor  intended  for  him; 
but  when  the  gentleman  who  had  offered  the  resolution  re- 
marked that  really  no  resolution  was  necessary,  if  only  the  discus- 
sion would  be  conducted  as  proposed,  it  was,  of  course,  settled 
by  his  as  well  as  Dr.  Walther's  authority  that  the  speakers  who 
were  uncalled  for,  in  more  than  one  sense  of  the  word,  now  with- 
drew from  the  discussion  almost  altogether,  and  left  the  defense 
of  his  position  to  Dr.  Walther  and  a  few  of  his  St.  Louis  col- 
leagues. Hereupon  the  "opponents"  were  requested,  first  of  all, 
to  state  their  view  of  §§  13-24  in  its  full  connection.  This  was 
done,  and  entirely  in  accord  with  the  "line  of  thought  in  Ar- 
ticle XI  of  the  Formula  of  Concord"  as  set  forth  above.  Accord- 
ing to  the  "Verhandlungen"  (Report)  the  following  men  espe- 
cially found  that  they  fully  agreed  on  this  point,  the  Revs.  H. 
A.  AUwardt,  H.  Ernst  (now  Professor  in  St.  Paul,  Minn.),  C.  H. 
Rohe,  H.  Diemer,  J.  G.  Kunz,  A.  Bromer  (von  Schlichten),  T. 
Korner,  Director  E.  A.  W.  Krauss,  and  the  author  of  the  present 
work.  Yet  there  was  quite  a  number  favoring  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree  the  cause  of  the  "opponents."  But  most  of  them  withdrew 
from  their  "opposition"  either  already  during  the  Conference,  or 
after  it,  some  sooner  and  some  later,  and  yielded  to  the  almost 
irresistible  current  tearing  everything  along  with  it,  which 
ahvays  formed  in  the  Missouri  Synod  when  Dr.  Walther  es- 
poused anything  in  a  decided  manner  and  defended  it  with  the 
whole  weight  of  his  authority,  shining  in  all  the  glory  of  practical 
infallibility.  We  do  not  arrogate  to  ourselves  any  judgment 
concerning  the  hearts  of  these  more  than  400  pastors  who  finally, 
either  openly  or  silently,  declared  themselves  in  favor  of  Dr. 
Walther's  position;   yet  it  was  our  conviction  at  the  time,  and  is 


126  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

still  in  all  honesty  our  conviction,  based  on  many  years  of  per- 
sonal observation  and  experience,  that  for  by  far  the  greatest  ma- 
jority, although  perhaps  altogether  unconsciously,  the  mere  au- 
thority of  Dr.  Walther  decided  the  whole  matter.  If  he  had  de- 
fended what  the  "opponents"  upheld  as  Lutheran  doctrine,  they 
would  have  followed  him  in  the  same  way,  and  even  more  joy- 
fully, as  this  would  have  been  the  very  thing  they  had  hitherto 
believed,  and  without  Dr.  Walther's  authority  the  other  St.  Louis 
professors,  although  on  the  whole  manifesting  more  consistency 
and  clearness  than  he,  would  never  have  been  able  to  substitute 
the  modern  Missourian  for  the  old  Missourian  and  old  Lutheran 
doctrine. 

Dr.  Walther  and  Rev.  Stockhardt  especially  set  forth  the 
modern  Missourian  doctrine  over  against  the  "opponents,"  the 
former  in  a  longer  speech,  treating  the  matter  in  a  more  general 
way,  of  which,  however,  even  the  most  eminent  adherents  de- 
clared in  private  conversation  that  it  was  a  very  tame  afifair;  and 
the  latter  in  a  briefer  exposition,  in  which  he  dwelt  on  the  passage 
of  the  Confession  under  consideration.  Dr.  Walther  made  the 
impression  as  though  he  would  feel  relieved  if  these  §§  13-24 
were  not  in  the  Confession  at  all,  and  as  though  he  entered  upon 
their  discussion  only  because  he  felt  himself  compelled  to  do  so. 
We  quote  the  following  assertions  as  most  noteworthy:  "The 
other  side  has  really  no  election  at  all,  only  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication" ("Verhandlungen,  etc.,"  p.  3G).  "What  we  teach  is  no 
absolute,  but  a  conditional  election.  The  conditions  are  God's 
grace,  Christ's  merit,  and  faith;  but  these  are  conditions  which 
not  we,  but  God  Himself  fulfills  in  us"  (p.  38) — a  conditional 
election  which  even  the  extremest  Calvinist  can  accept  and  ac- 
tually does  accept,  and  this  altogether  in  the  modern  Missourian 
sense.  "This  is  election  that  God  brings  certain  persons  to  the 
way  of  salvation,  wall  keep  them  on  this  way,  even  though  breaks 
in  the  process  occur,  and  finally  saves  them  with  absolute  cer- 
tainty. Therefore,  faith  must  not  be  brought  in  here  as  a  cause; 
for  this  is  the  question,  whether  I  can  also  be  certain  of  my  sal- 
vation. Of  this,  faith  does  not  make  me  certain ;  for  I  must  here 
know  whether  I  also  will  remain  in  faith,  for  if  I  remain  not,  I 
will  still  at  last  be  lost" — a  confused  statement,seemingly  teaching 
a  certainty  apart  from  and  aside  from  faith,  and  thus  having 
cjuite  a  fanatical  ring.  The  8  points  are  said  to  state  in  what  way 
God  brings  those  to  salvation  whom  He  has  chosen  from  the 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     127 

number  of  mankind  without  regard  to  their  foreseen  conduct. 
Rev.  Stockhardt  attempted  to  harmonize  the  §§  referred  to  with 
his  views;  yet  he  too  showed  plainly  that  in  his  opinion  these  §§ 
rather  interfered  with  and  disturbed  than  explained  and  eluci- 
dated the  matter.  The  idea  of  election  in  the  sense  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  he  derived  especially  from  §§  5,  8  and  23,  and  thought 
that  he  could  demonstrate  that  "this  idea  of  election  is  found  also 
in  the  8  points"  (p.  40).  "God  has  predestinated  certain  persons 
unto  the  adoption  of  children  and  unto  salvation."  This,  and  no 
more  is,  as  he  says,  the  idea  of  election. 

In  regard  to  the  passages  quoted  in  §  13,  Eph.  1,  Rom.  8, 
and  Matth.  22,  which  are  "as  it  were  the  heading  for  all  that  fol- 
lows," he  claimed  that-  in  them,  "especially  in  Rom.  8,  there  is 
reference  only  to  the  elect,"  and  that  "therefore  in  what  follows 
there  can  be  reference  only  to  the  calling,  the  justification,  the 
sanctification  of  the  elect."  Evidently  Matth.  22  did  not  quite 
suit  him  in  this  regard  (compare  above  p.  115).  After  saying:  "In 
Eph.  1  we  are  shown  that  it"  (election)  "has  taken  place  in  Christ, 
in  Rom.  8  the  way  is  described  by  which  election  reaches  its 
goal,"  he  continues:  "The  passage  also  quoted  in  the  Confession, 
Matth.  22,  shows,  how  the  elect  are  called  in  the  same  way  as 
the  others  who  are  not  saved"  (p.  40);  just  as  if  this  passage, 
which  Chemnitz  always  puts  before  the  rest,  were  only  attached 
like  a  superfluous  addition. 

In  the  following  session  the  attempt  was  made,  especially  by 
Dr.  Walther,  to  prove  that  the  view  of  one  of  the  "opponents" 
regarding  the  idea  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  untenable. 
Especially  the  following  passage  in  his  more  extended  statement 
was  attacked:  "The  institution  of  the  universal  way  of  salvation 
must  precede"  (i.  e.  precede  "election  in  the  narrowest  sense," 
the  "particular  choice  of  certain  individual  persons  unto  the  in- 
fallible attainment  of  salvation").  "If  God  had  foreseen  that  all 
men  would  permit  themselves  to  be  brought  to  salvation,  then  no 
election  would  ever  have  taken  place.  But  this  must  not  be  taken 
as  saying  that  men  may  see  how  they  may  become  pious,  etc., 
whereupon  God  decrees  to  save  them.  No,  God  does  not  say: 
This  is  the  universal  way  of  salvation,  now  men  may  walk  upon  it. 
On  the  contrary,  the  second  part  of  election  is  the  judicial  appli- 
cation of  the  stipulations  of  the  universal  way  of  salvation  on  the 
basis  of  God's  foresight.  But  in  how  far  is  it  necessary  for  God  to 
decree  this?  one  might  sav.     I  answer:    This  is  something  like 


128  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestinatioi. 

God's  working  in  nature.  God  has  established  all  nature  with  all 
its  ordered  forces;  and  yet  no  one  is  to  suppose  that  God  now  sits, 
as  it  were,  in  His  easy  chair  and  lets  everything  take  its  course 
according  to  the  order  He  has  fixed.  No;  all  that  takes  place  in 
nature,  lightning,  thunder,  etc.,  is  an  act  of  God.  And  thus  it  is 
here.  I  would  refer  also  to  an  anology,  to  the  doctrine  of  a  double 
justification.  Here  we  all  teach,  in  opposition  to  modern  theo- 
logians, that  there  is  an  objective  justification  which  took  place 
through  Christ's  resurrection.  All  mankind  is  justified  object- 
ively through  Christ's  resurrection.  There  God  declared:  Now 
all  men  are  justified,  free  from  sin,  and  he  who  accepts  this  ob- 
jective justification  by  faith  shall  be  justified  also  subjectively. 
Here  too  it  could  be  asked:  Why  this  subjective  justification? 
Yet  this  also  is  an  especial  judicial  act  of  God,  whereby  He 
judicially  applies  the  objective  justification  to  the  believing  indi- 
vidual. I  look  at  particular  election  in  a  similar  way;  it  is  the 
judicial  application  of  the  stipulations  of  the  universal  way  of  sal- 
vation." This  brief  definition  of  personal  election,  together  with 
its  comparison  to  subjective  justification,  i.  e.  in  so  far  as  both 
are  judicial  acts  of  God,  and  which,  if  one  were  to  regard  only 
what  they  are  based  upon,  might  be  thought  to  be  unnecessary, 
was  attacked  especially  and  even  pronounced  to  be  an  unheard- 
of  thing  in  the  Lutheran  Church  (for  instance,  p.  52),  most  of  all 
by  Dr.  Walther,  who  with  his  exact  knowledge  of  the  old  Lu- 
theran dogmaticians  could  know,  if  indeed  he  was  not  bound  to 
know,  that  definition,  and  therefore  also  the  comparison,  stated 
precisely  the  view  of  the  dogmaticians,  although  in  its  own  way 
(compare  above  p.  24  sq.).  At  first  no  one  could  or  would  see  the 
point  of  comparison,  and  all  acted  as  if  the  "opponents"  taught 
a  universal  election  of  all  men!  Then  Dr.  Walther,  in  order  to 
weaken  the  argument  in  the  comparison,  even  denied  that  sub- 
jective justification,  i.  e.  the  justification  of  the  individual  when 
he  has  appropriated  Christ's  universal  merit  by  faith,  is  a  judicial 
act  of  God,  expressing  himself  as  follows:  "It  is  not  true  that  a 
new  act  follows  when  I  have  appropriated  objective  justification 
by  faith.  The  act  has  taken  place.  By  faith  I  already  possess 
righteousness.  God  does  not  need  to  adjudge  it  to  me  individ- 
ually afterwards."  "Objective  justification  is  nothing  but  the  ac- 
quisitio  of  the  justitia  or  the  acquisition  of  righteousness,  and 
God's  gift  is  also  there."  ("Verhandlungen,  etc.,"  p.  46;  compare 
above  p.  36,  where  it  is  shown  that  this  is  the  genuine  Reformed. 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     129 

view).  Afterwards  indeed,  as  though  he  had  not  said  the  above 
at  all,  or  as  though  he  wished  to  hide  where  he  had  exposed  him- 
self, he  maintained:  "Objective  justification  is  just  as  much  a 
judicial  act  of  God  as  is  subjective  justification"  (p.  50) — just  as 
though  any  one,  save  himself,  had  denied  this,  and  as  though  this 
had  not  been  asserted  directly  in  the  words  of  one  of  the  "op- 
ponents" quoted  above!  One  of  these  blundering  zealots,  whose 
mouth  was  to  be  stopped  by  the  resolution  referred  to  above,  but 
who  still  thought  it  his  business  to  second  Dr.  Walther  also  here, 
otherwise  an  excellent  man,  yet  in  theological  matters,  as  well  as 
many  another,  the  mere  echo  of  Dr.  Walther,  said:  "According 
to  this  definition  election  is  nothing  but  the  mere  foreknowledge 
of  God"!  (P.  50.)  Think  of  it:  "The  judicial  application  on  the 
basis  of  God's  foresight,"  "nothing  but  the  mere  foreknowledge 
of  God"!  Another  confessed:  "It  is  now  nearly  twenty-five 
years  since  I  have  come  to  faith  through  the  Gospel,  but  I  have 
not  yet  heard  the  subjective  judgment  of  God."  (P.  50.)  The 
good  man  imagined  the  genuinely  Missourian  expression,  "sub- 
jective justification,"  to  signify  the  same  as  a  "subjective  judg- 
ment of  God,"  which  one  might  "hear,"  and  yet  he  felt  himself 
called  upon  to  help  annihilate  the  "opponents."  Worst  of  all, 
however,  and  most  unjustifiable  was  the  following,  when  Dr. 
Walther  was  reminded  of  his  former  approval  of  Wandalin's  defi- 
nition (see  above  p.  82  sqq.),  he  did  not  scruple  to  declare,  with 
bold-faced  disregard  of  the  facts  as  known  to  all,  in  answer  to 
the  "opponent"  who  accepted  this  definition :  "Then  you  belong 
to  us.  There  is  not  one  word  here  that  God  has  elected  on  the 
basis  of  foreseen  faith.  We  are  not  such  fools  as  to  say  that  those 
are  elected  of  whom  God  foresaw  that  they  would  not  believe" 
(p.  51) — as  if  good  old  Wandalinus,  in  his  summary  of  the  doc- 
trine of  our  old  dogmaticians,  had  wanted  to  say  no  more  than 
any  Calvinist  could  accept!  Moreover,  Dr.  Walther  declared  in 
this  connection:  "I  am  saved  for  the  sake  of  Christ  apprehended 
by  faith.  But  where  is  it  written  that  for  this  reason  we  are 
elected"?  One  of  Dr.  Walther's  chief  means  for  proving  the 
above  definition  of  one  of  the  opponents  to  be  contrary  to  the 
Confession  was  this,  that  he  constantly  spoke  as  though  this 
definition  made  the  choice  of  persons  a  judicial  act  of  God  only 
in  such  a  way  as  to  be  of  no  benefit  to  man  before  his  death,  con- 
tained no  consolation,  etc.  (p.  53  sqq.),  whereas  already  in  this 
definition  and  exposition,  which  could  touch  only  briefly  upon 


130  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

single  points,  we  read:  "Here"  (in  §  23  which  treats  expressly  of 
the  choice  made)  "therefore,  is  the  declaration  that  God  will 
really  save  the  elect  by  means  of  the  universal  way  of  salvation  in 
spite  of  all  foes  and  of  their  own  weakness"  (p.  52;  compare 
above  p.  42).  To  be  sure  two  things  were  here  held  fast  by  the 
"opponents,"  namely,  that  the  real  and  chief  consolation  of  elec- 
tion in  the  sense  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  found  in  its  first 
part,  in  the  eternal  institution  of  the  vmiversal  way  of  salvation; 
and  secondly,  only  that  choice  of  persons  which  follows  logically 
from  the  stipulations  of  this  universal  way  of  salvation  can  be 
full  of  consolation  for  us  (p.  Gl;  64  sq.). 

In  this  connection,  we  would  draw  attention  also  to  a  funda- 
mental difference  between  Dr.  Walther  and  his  St.  Louis  lieuten- 
ants. If  we  mistake  not.  Dr.  Walther  himself  had  declared: 
"Those  who  are  not  elected  are  not  elected  for  the  reason  that  they 
wilfully  resist."  This  sentence  was  corrected  by  one  of  these 
lieutenants  as  though  it  were  wrong.  Dr.  Walther  at  first  agreed 
to  this;  but  when  the  "opponents"  opposed  the  correction  offered 
by  pointing  to  Dr.  Walther's  own  former  declaration,  that  those 
who  are  not  elected  are  not  elected  for  the  reason  that  God  could 
not  choose  them,  he  briefly  and  emphatically  declared :  "That  is 
what  I  still  believe  to-day;  I  do  not  agree  with  those  who  deny 
this"  (p.  61  sq.),  and  yet  he  remained  the  faithful  ally  of  these 
thorough-going  Calvinists  and  shielded  them  with  his  authority. 
We  shall  see  further  on  how  far  he  permitted  himself  to  be  driven 
by  these  consistent  Calvinists,  after  giving  them  his  little  finger 
by  leaving  the  standpoint  of  our  dogmaticians.  It  looks  like  a 
singular  fatality  that  he  should  have  been  joined  to  the  ranks  of 
these  people,  "Young  Missouri"  as  we  "opponents"  sometimes 
called  them,  at  the  time  when  his  mental  faculties  were  no  longer 
what  they  once  had  been.  Without  them  he  would  never  have 
wanted  to  go  so  far,  and  they  without  him  could  never  have  gone 
so  far,  as  both  finally  did  go  together,  namely  to  the  length  of 
openly  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  predestination  and  the  concep- 
tion of  our  Confession  which  has  been  in  force  in  our  Lutheran 
Church  since  the  publication  of  the  Confession,  for  nearly  300 
years,  and  has  found  expression  in  our  best  dogmaticians,  Bible 
commentaries,  devotional  writings,  and  catechisms! 

To  ward  oflf  all  false  mterpretations  of  the  term  "judicial 
application"  in  the  definition  spoken  of  above,  its  author  declared 
at  the  first  opportunity:     "As  far  as  the  word  'judicial'  is  con- 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     131 

cerned,  I  should  have  said  at  once  that  I  take  it  in  the  sense  in 
which  our  old  teachers  call  the  voluntas  consequens"  (the  sub- 
sequent will)  "a  voluntas  judicialis"  (  a  judicial  will).  "Our  theo- 
logians, beginning  with  Hunnius  distinguish  a  twofold  will  in 
God:  voluntas  antecedens  and  consequens.  Gerhard  explains 
this  distinction  very  clearly.  You  will  perhaps  permit  me  to  read 
it,  as  I  would  have  to  say  the  same  thing  (Gerhard,  loc.  VIII.  de 
electione  et  reprobatione,  c.  IV.  §  LXXIX.  Ed.  Cotta  torn.  IV. 
p.  169;  ed.  Preuss  p.  Gl):  'This  distinction,  however,  (between 
voluntas  antecedens  and  consequens)  does  not  divide  the  will 
itself,  which  is  one  in  God  and  indivisible,  but  distinguishes  its 
two-fold  relation.  In  the  voluntas  antecedens  (the  antecedent  will) 
reference  is  had  to  the  means  of  salvation  in  so  far  as  they  are  or- 
dained on  God's  part  and  are  offered  to  all.  In  the  voluntas 
consequens  (the  subsequent  will)  reference  is  had  to  these  same 
means,  but  in  so  far  as  they  are  either  accepted  or  rejected  by  men. 
The  antecedent  will  is  so  called  because  it  precedes  the  considera- 
tion of  man's  obedience  or  disobedience,  it  is  simply  the  gracious 
will  of  God  extending  equally  over  all.  The  subsequent  will  has 
this  name  because  it  follows  the  consideration  of  human  obedience 
or  disobedience ;  it  shows  definitely  how  this  will  regards  those 
men  who  follow  the  order  of  means,  and  those  who  neglect  this 
order.'  Thus  when  I  say  'judicial  application',  I  could  have  said 
just  as  well :  'which  is  based  on  the  voluntas  consequens.'  "  ("Ver- 
handlungen  etc."  p.  62  sq.)  It  was  so  much  the  more  unjustifiable 
when  Dr.  Walther  dared  to  say  even  after  this:  "Why,  if  Gerhard 
or  Quenstedt  and  others  had  been  offered  the  definition  of  election 
offered  us,  they  would  have  lifted  up  their  hands  in  horror"  (p.  94) 
— the  exclamation  of  a  true  demagogue,  which  the  great  majority 
of  the  assembly,  trusting  the  learning  and  the  honesty  of  their 
leader  for  so  many  years,  accepted  without  further  thought  as 
really  true,  whereas  this  leader  must  have  known  that  all  our  dog- 
maticians  who  have  the  intuitu,  thus  also  Gerhard  and  Quenstedt, 
thereby  of  necessity  and  outspokenly  made  the  choice  of  persons 
proceed  from  the  voluntas  consequens  or  judicialis  (the  subse- 
quent or  judicial  will),  in  other  words,  make  it  consist  in  a  judicial 
act  (compare  above  p.  80  sqq.;    57  sqq.;    62;    94;    102  sq.). 

We  add  the  following  utterances  of  Dr.  Walther  and  his 
friends  as  they  are  characteristic.  "If  faith  is  the  rule"  (to  which 
God  had  regard  in  the  choice  of  persons),  "then  God  was  led  by 
this  rule,  and  that  makes  it  a  'cause'.     You  may  deny  that  you 


132  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

have  three  causes  of  election:  God's  grace,  Christ's  merit,  and 
faith ;  but  you  are  only  afraid  to  put  it  in  these  words."  Thus  did 
Dr.  Walther  decree  (p.  67).  When  this  illogical  as  well  as  un- 
charitable utterance  was  answered  by  referring  to  justification, 
where  God  certainly  has  regard  to  faith,  and  where  none  of  us  for 
this  reason  thinks  of  calling  faith  a  cause  of  justification,  or  thinks 
of  co-ordinating  it  in  any  way  with  God's  grace  and  Christ's  merit, 
he  never  entered  upon  this  striking  refutation  of  his  dictum,  that 
a  rule  must  necessarily  be  a  cause  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word, 
but  began  to  speak  of  something  else — a  trick  of  his,  which  the 
careful  and  discriminating  reader  of  the  "'^'' Thandlungen"  will 
notice  in  more  than  one  place.  He  said:  "'ine  fact  that  in  justi- 
fication grace  and  faith  stand  side  by  side,  and  not  so  in  election, 
is  due  to  this  that  we  do  not  apprehend  election  by  faith,  as  we  do 
apprehend  Christ's  righteousness  by  faith.  The  righteousness 
of  Christ  belongs  to  the  whole  world,  therefore  we  can  and  shall 
embrace  it  by  faith.  But  election  does  not  concern  the  whole 
world,  but  only  the  children  of  God"  (p.  67).  And  this  is  the  man 
who  claims  to  abide  by  the  Confession  which  declares:  "There- 
fore the  entire  Holy  Trinity,  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  direct 
all  men"  (in  other  words  "the  whole  world")  "to  Christ,  as  to  the 
Book  of  Life,  in  which  they  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the 
Father."  (Jacobs'  Transl.  p.  661,  §  66;  compare  above,  p.  44). 
If  God  Himself  tells  all  men  to  seek  eternal  election  in  Christ,  then 
it  must  be  present  for  all  in  Christ,  so  that  election  depends  only 
on  our  believing  in  Christ.  At  another  time  Dr.  Walther  declared 
the  statement  of  one  of  the  "opponents":  "God  could  not  de- 
termine to  elect  me  without  seeing  Christ  in  me",  to  be  "a  terrible 
doctrine",  thus  openly  opposing  all  our  theologians  who  teach  the 
intuitu  fidei,  and  not  only  the  "opponents"  (p.  71;  compare  above 
p.  24  sq.).  —  Another  example  of  how  Dr.  Walther  did  not  at  all 
meet  an  uncomfortable  objection,  but  would  simply  speak  of 
something  else,  is  found  in  the  following.  One  of  the  "opponents" 
had  said  among  other  things  the  following:  "Upon  this  universal 
way  of  salvation  I  must,  according  to  my  conviction,  base  the 
choice  of  persons,  if  this  choice  is  to  be  full  of  consolation.  The 
second  part  of  the  choice  must  really  be  the  application  of  the  way 
of  salvation  to  the  individual.  Then  alone  can  we  console  our- 
selves when  the  choice  of  persons  is  nothing  but  the  application 
of  the  way  of  salvation  mediated  by  the  foresight  of  God.  In  the 
position  of  our  opponents  election  is  not  really  brought  into  con- 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     133 

nection  with  the  universal  way  of  salvation,  but  stands  beside  it 
as  something  peculiar,  separated  from  it  by  a  great  gulf.  They 
have  two  orders  of  God:  one,  the  universal  way  of  salvation,  and 
one,  a  particular  election.  The  outcome  finally  is  decided  by 
the  latter.  According  to  this  doctrine  God  has  had  no  regard  to 
the  order  of  salvation  so  as  to  make  it  the  norm  of  election.  The 
actual  attainment  of  salvation  depends  finally  and  exclusively 
upon  particular  election.  Nothing  depends  for  our  opponents 
upon  universal  grace,  everything  upon  election.  If  I  am  upon 
the  way  of  salvation  and  am  not  elected,  I  cannot  be  saved,  even 
if,  as  the  synodical  Report"  (see  above,  p.  93)  "says,  I  hear  God's 
Word  ever  so  diligently,  pray,  etc.  And  yet  I  am  to  know  whether 
I  am  elected  or  not,  from  the  universal  way  of  salvation,  which  is 
separated  from  election  by  a  great  gulf.  But  how  can  I  comfort 
myself  with  the  universal  way  of  salvation  as  to  my  election? 
how  comfort  myself  with  the  universal  way  of  salvation  upon 
which  at  last  nothing  depends?  How  shall  one  who  is  troubled  in 
conscience  console  himself  when  this  consolation  is  not  sufficient 
for  those  who  are  thus  troubled?  We  must  still  go  back  to  the 
universal  way  and  will  of  salvation.  Just  this  is  my  chief  reason 
for  opposing  your  doctrine.  It  destroys  the  foundation  of  the 
consolation  which  flows  from  the  universal  way  of  salvation." 
Every  man  in  any  way  able  to  judge  will  admit  that  this  objection 
weighs  heavily  and  cannot  be  ignored  or  simply  set  aside.  But 
what  did  Dr.  Walther  answer?  "This  contraposition  of  election 
and  the  universal  way  of  salvation  is  nothing  but  an  invention  of 
the  professor.  We  do  not  make  it  at  all.  On  the  contrary,  we 
add  the  order  of  salvation  and  say:  He  who  has  not  come  to  faith 
or  has  fallen  away  cannot  count  himself  among  the  elect.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  who  has  come  to  faith,  is  being  sanctified,  is 
patient  in  affliction,  prays  diligently,  uses  the  means  of  grace  faith- 
fully, he  alone  can  believe  that  he  is  chosen.  Therefore  it  is  our 
doctrine  of  election  which  says:  God  wants  to  bring  you  to  sal- 
vation, if  you  are  to  be  saved,  only  upon  the  way  of  salvation  He 
has  ordained.  What  then  is  this  talk  about  our  tearing  asunder! 
On  the  contrary,  our  opponents  tear  asunder.  They  speak  only 
of  a  universal  way  of  salvation,  and  then  away  on  behind  comes 
election,  like  a  limping,  lost  messenger.  This  is  no  election  at 
all.  No,  we  put  the  two  together;  you  tear  them  asunder."  (P.  84.) 
Can  any  one  suppose  that  a  sensible  man  could  imagine  he  had 
weakened  or  refuted  the  objection  offered  by  this  reply,  which 


134  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

any  Calvinist  might  give?  The  point  at  issue  is  this,  that  accord- 
ing to  modern  Missourian  as  well  as  Calvinistic  doctrine  the  uni- 
versal way  of  salvation  was  not  the  norm  and  rule  of  God's  choice, 
and  that  therefore  no  one  could  conclude  as  to  his  election  from 
the  universal  way  of  salvation  and  console  himself  therewith;  and 
Dr.  Walther  declares  this  to  be  "nothing  but  an  invention",  a  false 
accusation,  because,  according  to  modern  Missourian  as  well  as 
Calvinistic  doctrine,  the  realization  of  election  in  time,  the  bring- 
ing to  salvation  of  those  who  are  chosen  according  to  a  secret 
norm  and  rule,  takes  place  in  no  other  way  than  that  of  the  uni- 
versal order  of  salvation !  And  at  the  same  time  he  talks  as  thoup'h 
the  "opponents"  denied  that  the  elect  are  brought  to  salvation 
upon  the  universal  way  of  salvation,  whereas  already  in  the  first 
extended  elucidation  of  their  standpoint  they  had  declared  in  so 
many  words:  "These  8  points  then  are  found  twice  in  the  doctrine 
of  predestination  according  to  the  Formula  of  Concord ;  namely, 
first,  after  the  first  half  of  §  23  as  the  institution  of  the  universal 
way  of  salvation,  which  institution  forms  the  first  part  of  election 
in  the  sense  of  the  Formula  of  Concord ;  and  secondly,  as  the  way 
upon  which  God  actually  leads  the  elect  unto  salvation."  (P.  32 
sq.) 

The  following  furnishes  an  example  of  the  manner  in  which 
Dr.  Walther  treated  even  the  oldest  and  most  distinguished  of  his 
synodical  brethren.  One  of  the  "opponents"  had  said  that  he 
could  not  harmonize  Dr.  Walther's  present  doctrine  with  the 
former  doctrine  of  Synod,  and  referred  to  the  theses  of  Dr. 
Sihler  and  to  the  statements  of  Rev.  Fiirbringer  (see  above  p.  54 
sqq.),  printed  in  "Lehre  und  Wehre"  without  the  slightest  editorial 
comment  or  correction.  To  this  Dr.  Walther  answered:  "This 
shows  that  we"  (who? — surely  not  the  Synod,  which  without  a 
doubt,  if  at  the  time  it  took  any  position  at  all  on  this  subject, 
agreed  perfectly  with  these  two)  "at  that  time  still  tolerated  in  our 
midst  the  second  form  of  doctrine"  (Lehrtropus).  When  some 
one  then,  who  here  as  always  imagined  he  had  to  re-echo  Dr. 
Walther's  statement,  added:  "But  now  no  more,"  Dr.  Walther 
declared:  "By  saying  that  'at  that  time  we  tolerated'  I  do  not 
wish  to  say:  'But  now  no  more';  rather  I  would  say 
this:  That  was  not  really  the  voice  of  our  Synod,  but 
the  private  voice  of  Dr.  Sihler  and  Rev.  Fiirbringer.  It  was  not 
my  voice,  who  am  the  editor  appointed  by  the  Synod  as  such,  and 
besides  this  the  teacher  of  dogmatics.     He  who  says  this  lies."^ 


The  Doctrhie  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     135 

What,  therefore,  did  not  proceed  from  Dr.  Walther's  pen  was  not 
the  voice  of  Synod  and  was  only  tolerated.  But  in  regard  to  his 
own  position  compare  what  has  been  stated  above  (p.  01  sqq.). 

The  real  mystery  in  predestination  Dr.  Walther  declared  to 
be  this:  "Why  God  does  not  work  equally  in  all  men,  i.  e.  in  the 
same  way";  "Why  God  for  instance  gave  repentance  and  faith 
indeed  to  Peter,  but  not  to  Judas,  why  so  few  come  to  faith  and 
millions  do  not,  whereas  God  would  be  able  to  give  faith  to  all" 
(p.  92  sq.);  and  therefore  he  repeatedly  rejected  even  the  view 
that  faith  is  the  explanation  of  the  fact  that  one  part  of  mankind  is 
chosen  and  another  not;  for  then,  he  said,  faith  w^ould  have  to  be 
"a  work  of  man"  (compare  above  p.  11)  sq.)  But  how  does  this 
declaration  agree  with  the  one  cited  above,  that  God  passed  by 
those  whom  He  did  not  elect,  because  He  could  not  elect  them 
("Verhandlungen  etc.,  p.  61  sq.;  compare  p.  96,  where  Dr. 
Walther  declares  that  he  does  not  reject  the  doctrine  "that  God 
desired  to  elect  all  men")?  If  God  were  able  to  give  faith  to  all 
men,  namely  in  the  ordered  way  of  salvation  necessary  and  sufifi- 
cient  for  all,  then  undoubtedly  He  could  have  elected  all.  Here 
we  see  the  old  Lutheran  and  the  modern  Missourian  views  un- 
harmonized  side  by  side. — The  following  may  serve  as  an  instance 
of  a  total  confusion  of  the  two :  "If  I  do  not  believe  now  that  I  am 
one  of  the  elect,  then  I  do  not  take  God  to  be  true.  For  God  has 
thus  described  the  elect  in  His  Word.  I  read  that  we  are  to  watch, 
to  pray,  and  God  will  surely  hear  such  prayer"  (also  the  prayer  of 
temporal  believers  for  perseverence?),  "and  though  one  should 
for  once  fall  from  faith,  he  has  not  ceased  to  be  one  of  the  elect, 
if  he  was  such  before  this ;  but  he  w-as  either  not  elected,  or  he  is 
still  of  the  elect,  and  God  will  see  to  it  that  he  shall  again  come  to 
faith"  (p.  95  sq.).  But  who  will  decide  for  him  that  now  is  a  be- 
liever to  which  of  these  two  classes  he  belongs,  whether  to  those 
for  whom  God  "sees  to  it"  that  they  shall  again  come  to  faith  in 
spite  of  their  falling  away,  and  this  because  He  has  elected  them 
without  regard  to  their  conduct  unto  the  infallible  attainment  of 
salvation;  or  to  those  for  whom  God  does  not  do  this  just  because 
He  has  not  elected  them?  God  surely  does  not  decide  this  for  any 
one  in  His  Word.  And  how  then  can  it  be  asserted  of  any  man 
that  he  does  not  accept  God  as  a  true  God,  when  he  cannot  con- 
sider himself  to  be  one  of  those  who  are  unconditionally  elected? — 
On  page  98  we  find  the  following  from  Dr.  Walther:  "The  con- 
solation given  me  by  election  consists  in  this  that  I  cannot  lose 


136  The  Presoit   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

faith  finaliter"  (till  the  end),  "in  this  that  election  tells  me:  Not 
only  did  God  in  general  decree  that  all  who  are  saved  shall  be 
brought  to  this  goal  by  a  certain  way  of  grace,  but  there  are  also  a 
certain  number  of  men  of  whom  God  has  ordained,  according 
to  His  purpose,  that  they  shall  and  must  remain  in  faith,  or,  if  they 
for  once  should  fall  from  faith,  that  they  shall  lose  it  only  for  a 
time,  and  shall  finally  be  saved.  On  this  all  depends."  (P.  98.) 
But,  supposing  that  what  is  here  stated  in  agreement  with  the 
Calvinists  were  really  the  case,  how  can  any  man  know  whether 
he  belongs  to  these  elect;  since,  to  take  it  strictly,  he  can  in  no  way 
draw  the  least  reliable  conclusion  as  to  his  perseverence  and  final 
salvation,  and  therefore  as  to  his  election,  from  his  nresent  faith? 
for  according  to  this  view  not  only  not  all  who  at  one  time  believe 
remain  in  faith,  or  if  they  fall  away  return  again  to  faith,  but  also 
election  itself  is  not  conditioned  upon  a  perseverence  in  faith  made 
possible  for  all  men  by  God,  since  persevering,  and  therefore  truly 
saving,  faith  depends  in  its  last  instance  upon  an  election  made 
without  regard  to  conduct  and  faith. — One  of  the  "opponents" 
had  said:  "This  consolation"  (of  personal  election)  "is  only  a 
conditional  consolation.  The  consolation  must  be  of  the  same 
nature  as  is  the  certainty  on  which  it  rests.  That  the  first  part  of 
election"  (the  universal  order  of  salvation)  "exists  for  me,  I  know 
with  absolute  certainty;  therefore  also  the  consolation"  (flowing 
out  of  this  order  of  salvation)  "to  which  I  must  finally  always  re- 
turn, is  altogether  sure  for  me,  and  remains  when  I  am  troubled. 
The  Formula  of  Concord  knows  nothing  of  another  comfort,  not 
remaining  when  1  am  troubled  in  conscience.  And  of  what  use 
could  it  be  to  me?"  And  what  was  Dr.  Walther's  answer?  "My 
reply  is :  I  say  that  I  need  the  consolation  at  the  very  time  when 
I  am  thus  troubled"  (the  consolation  of  the  Missourian  Calvinistic 
election),  "at  other  times  I  do  not  need  it.  When  not  thus 
troubled,  he"  (who?)  "thinks:  That  is  very  easy;  the  flesh  is  easily 
conquered,  and  shall  not  deceive  me ;  the  world  shall  not  outwit 
me;  the  devil  shall  not  gain  the  mastery.  But  when  one  is 
troubled,  all  this  disappears.  If  I  then  know:  I  can  covmt  myself 
among  the  elect"  (a  strange  trial,  in  which  this  can  be  done'), 
"then  I  am  at  ease  and  content.  Then  I  can  say :  May  the  ene- 
mies of  my  soul  rage  and  rave  as  much  as  they  will,  I  fear  not;  for 
my  salvation  is  in  God's  hand"  (is  this  not  the  case  in  the  universal 
order  of  salvation?).  "If  it  were  in  my  own  hand"  (as,  accordingly, 
this  is  the  case  with  all  the  non-elect,  according  to  God's  arrange- 


The  Doctrijie  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     137 

ment!),  "then  I  might  despair;  but  Thou  God,  preserve  me:  I  can- 
not do  anything  toward  this.  This  is  what  gives  true  consolation." 
(P.  99.) — Yet,  according  to  Dr.  Walther,  there  is  still  something 
peculiar  about  this  Missourian  consolation.  "I  cheerfully  admit", 
he  says,  "that  we  must  first  know  the  doctrine  of  the  way  of  salva- 
tion before  we  can  understand  the  doctrine  of  predestination ;  for 
a  person  can  be  and  remain  a  true  Christian,  and  yet  know  nothing 
at  all  about  predestination.  He  can  be  a  true  Christian  and  be 
saved  in  death,  and  yet  have  doubted  predestination  up  to  his 
•death.  This  is  not  the  foundation  of  justifying  faith.  Predestina- 
tion has  not  been  revealed  to  us  for  this  purpose,  but  for  our  con- 
solation. Yet  I  may  lack  many  consolations  and  still  be  in  faith 
and  persevere  in  faith  .  .  .  No;  a  Christian  need  not  absolutely 
have  every  consolation  flowing  from  the  Scriptures,  from  the  Gos- 
pel, and  still  he  may  be  and  remain  a  Christian ;  and  thus  it  may  be 
and  is  the  case  that  millions  know  nothing  about  predestination, 
and  yet  are  the  best  of  Christians ;  they  despair  not  when  troubled" 
(p.  100  sq.).  But  how  does  this  agree  with  what  this  same  Dr. 
Walther  declared  in  the  Report  of  '77,  where  he  makes  predestina- 
tion in  the  Missourian  sense  "the  very  foundation  of  the  great  and 
inscrutable  mystery  of  our  salvation"  (see  above,  p.  72 ;  compare 
also  above,  p.  120,  Rev.  Stockhardt's  declaration,  according  to 
which  predestination  is  "the  basal  cause  as  well  of  our  salvation 
as  also  of  all  pertaining  to  our  salvation"),  and  where  he  says :  "It 
is  certainly  hard  to  comprehend  how  a  Christian  can  be  altogether 
at  ease  when  he  knows  nothing  about  election"  (see  above,  p.  75)? 
Here  we  would  have  an  exceedingly  necessary  consolation  which 
is  really  not  necessary;  a  basal  foundation  which  need  not  be 
known  for  one  to  be  "the  best  of  Christians"!  Evidently  here 
again  we  find  side  by  side  and  unharmonized  old  Lutheran  and 
modern  Missourian  Calvinistic  views  (compare  above  p.  32  sq.). 

This  may  suffice  to  give  the  reader  an  insight  into  the  dis- 
cussions of  this  memorable  Pastoral  Conference.  It  is  not  strange 
that  it  was  not  a  success.  Dr.  Walther's  arguments  could  not 
convert  to  modern  Missourianism  a  single  "opponent"  who  was 
clearly  conscious  of  his  old  Lutheran  standpoint,  and  as  a  matter 
of  course  no  impression  could  be  made  by  the  arguments  of  the 
"opponents"  upon  any  man  who  from  the  start  was  convinced 
that  Dr.  Walther  must  be  right.  Those  who  wavered  and  were 
undecided  naturally  went  with  the  great  crowd,  for  whom  Dr. 
Walther  was  right  whether  he  said  yea  or  nay,  or  whether  he  used 


138  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

old  or  modern  Missourian,  Lutheran  or  Calvinistic  language. 
Some,  perhaps,  were  not  altogether  at  ease  in  doing  this;  but  the 
same  thing  occurred  here  as  at  and  after  the  Vatican  Council. 
They  were  silent  from  respect  or  love  of  peace,  if  not  from  less 
praiseworthy  motives,  tried  to  explain  and  harmonize  things  at 
least  in  a  halfway  manner,  became  gradually  accustomed  to  the 
new  view,  permitted  the  "opponents"  to  be  represented  in  the 
worst  possible  light,  personally  and  theologically,  and  remained 
with  the  great  Synod  and  its  renowned  leader! 

Toward  the  close,  during  the  eleventh  session  the  resolu- 
tion was  passed  to  publish  the  adopted  minutes  of  the  discussions 
and  proceedings  without  alteration,  and  this  to  the  great  joy  of 
the  "opponents",  who,  as  it  appeared,  would  have  done  many  a 
one  a  favor,  if  they  would  have  opposed  this  publication  and 
thereby  prevented  it.  Besides  this  the  attempt  was  made  to  per- 
suade the  "opponents"  to  declare,  first,  that  they  no  longer  re- 
garded the  modern  Missourian  position  as  Calvinistic;  and,  sec- 
ondly, that  they  would  no  longer  publicly  attack  this  position. 
Very  naturally,  they  could  not  agree  to  the  former  demand  at 
all,  and  the  latter  at  least  not  unconditionally.  Hereupon  the 
great  majority  of  the  Conference  passed  the  following  resolution: 
"Resolved,  that  we  regard  all  of  the  opponents  who  publicly  at- 
tack us,  no  longer  as  brethren,  but  as  enemies."  Dr.  Walther 
and  his  adherents,  of  course,  did  not  bind  themselves  to  be  silent 
from  now  on  until  all  attempts  to  secure  unity  by  oral  discussion 
should  have  proved  useless  and  hopeless.  On  the  contrary,  every 
succeeding  number  of  "Lehre  und  Wehre"  brought  an  article 
aiming  to  prove  the  new  doctrine  and  to  secure  its  adoption. 

One  of  the  ugliest  pages  in  the  "Verhandlungen"  is  111, 
where  the  substance  is  given  of  what  Dr.  Walther  said  publicly  in 
regard  to  Prof.  Schmidt,  who  was  present  as  a  hearer,  but  was 
not  given  an  opportunity  to  defend  himself;  and  yet,  as  Rev.  All- 
wardt  has  shown  repeatedly  afterwards.  Dr.  Walther  could  not 
prove  his  accusations,  nor  did  he  ever  retract  his  calumniation. 
Dr.  Walther  claimed  that  "this  person"  who  "need  not  now  be 
named",  so  as  not  to  "reveal  his  shame",  whom  he,  however,  de- 
scribed sufficiently  for  all  present  to  know,  had  "tried  to  under- 
mine our  Synod  and  to  gain  a  following.  Then  letters  flew  as  in 
an  intelligence  office."  "It  is  mere  sham,  when  he  appeals  to  the 
Report  of '79.  On  the  contrary:  this  Report  was  just  what  pleased 
him,  and  he  imagined  that  it  was  a  very  creditable  matter  for  him 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     139 

to  do  this,  although  he  was  not  at  all  named,  and  had  already  made 
hostile  advances.  This  we  could  prove,  if  desired,  by  witnesses 
from  our  midst."  In  regard  to  the  Report  of  79  in  general  Dr. 
Walther  remarked:  "How  little  is  found  here  to  be  regarded  as 
personalities.  Onlv  very  gently,  as  with  the  tip  of  the  finger,  a 
matter  is  touched  upon  here,  of  which  the  speaker"  (Dr.  Walther) 
"knew  that  the  brother  concerned"  (Rev.  Allwardt)  "had  said  it." 
No  man,  except  he  knew  the  whole  matter  beforehand,  knew  who 
was  meant.  To  be  sure,  another  person"  (Prof.  Schmidt)  "is  more 
decisively  refuted  in  the  Report;  but  most  of  the  brethren  even  in 
the  Western  District  did  not  know  even  in  this  case  who  was 
meant."  Certainly  this  was  an  exceedingly  lame  defence  of  such 
a  public  attack  upon  men  who  were  his  brethren  in  the  faith  and 
with  whom  he  was  treating  in  private  (compare  above  p.  90;  and 
p.  106  sqq.). 


IIL 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   PREDESTINATION   IN   THE 
MISSOURI   SYNOD. 


F.    AFTER  THE  PASTORAL  CONFERENCE  IN  THE  AUTUMN  OF  1880. 

The  General  Pastoral  Conference  in  Chicago  adjourned 
on  the  5th  of  October.  "Lehre  und  Wehre"  for  this  month 
brought  an  article  by  Dr.  Walther  entitled  "  'Absolute'  Pre- 
destination." In  this  article  he  tries  to  demonstrate  that  the  mod- 
ern Missourian  doctrine  of  predestination  differs  essentially  from 
the  "Calvinistic  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination."  He  ex- 
claims for  instance:  "How  can  election  be  absolute  and  thus  un- 
conditional, when  it  is  conditioned  by  Christ's  merit  and  by  the 
faith  which  God  has  determined  to  give  to  the  elect?!  Indeed, 
it  is  said  in  reply,  in  this  very  thing  lies  the  doctrine  of  absolute 
election  that  God  has  chosen  the  elect  without  regard  to  their 
foreseen  faith,  and  has  resolved  to  give  them  this  faith.  How? 
Is  election  not  absolute  and  not  unconditional  only  then  when 
not  God  but  man  himself  fulfills  the  condition?"  We  answer: 
To  call  an  election  of  men,  made  possible  by  Christ's  merit  as  it 
exists  for  all  men,  an  election,  in  which  God  was  not  governed 
by  the  foreseen  faith  of  the  persons  concerned,  an  election,  in 
which  He  simply  decreed:  Only  to  these  persons,  all  others  ex- 
cluded, will  I  give  persevering  and  truly  saving  faith — to  call 
this  an  election  conditioned  on  Christ's  merit  and  on  faith,  is  non- 
sense and  deception,  an  unjustifiable  juggling  with  the  word  'con- 
ditional,' which  was  still  held  fast  at  that  time,  since  no  open 
rupture  with  the  old  dogmaticians  had  as  yet  been  risked.  What 
was  formerly  understood  in  Missouri,  in  harmony  with  the  old 
Lutheran  doctrine,  by  a  "conditional"  election  is  seen  for  instance 
in  Rev.  Fiirbringer's  article  (above  p.  56  sqq.). 

Then  after  attempting  further  to  prove  that  the  Formula  of 
Concord  speaks  of  election  in  the  same  sense  as  the  dogmati- 
cians, namely  not  of  election  in  the  wider,  but  in  the  narrower 
sense  (compare  above  p.  39  sqq.),  thus  making  faith  depend  upon 

(140) 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestiiiation  in  the  Missonri  Synod.     141 

the  latter  as  its  cause  and  source,  Dr.  Walther  proceeds  to  gloss 
over  a  few  of  the  most  ofifensive  utterances  of  modern  Missouri, 
some  of  which  have  already  been  referred  to  above.  To  begin 
with  he  takes  up  the  sentence:  "In  God  there  are  no  conditions" 
(cf.  above  p.  65).  This,  it  is  said,  is  "merely  to  reject  the  doctrine 
that  faith  is  the  cause  moving  God  to  election"  (p.  300),  and, 
"in  the  sense  in  which  it  has  been  taken  by  some,  is  no  element 
at  all"  in  the  modern  Missourian  doctrinal  position;  yet  "being 
capable  of  misconstruction,  as  though  election  were  'uncondi- 
tional,' "  it  is  withdrawn.  Evidently,  however,  the  sentence  re- 
ferred to  was  not  only  an  unfortunate  expression  for  the  proposi- 
tion that  faith  is  not  the  moving  cause  in  election,  but  it  was 
meant  to  state  a  general  truth,  according  to  which  it  would  be 
incorrect  to  say  that  God  has  chosen  in  view  of  faith.  So  the 
sentence  is  not  retracted  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  used.  The 
second  sentence  is  this:  God's  Word  testifies  that  grace  removes 
natural  resistance,  and  even  overcomes  the  most  wilful  opposi- 
tion" (das  mutwilligste  Streiten  und  sich  Wehren),  "gives  and 
preserves  faith"  ("Lehre  und  Wehre,"  XIX,  p.  173).  This  is 
claimed  merely  to  mean:  "Thousands  have  already  been  over- 
come and  have  been  converted  by  grace,  who  for  a  time  really 
antagonized  grace  with  wilful  opposition"  (p.  301) — as  though 
this  had  ever  been  called  into  question,  for  instance  by  Dr. 
Fritschel,  against  whom  this  dissertation,  the  10th  thesis  of  which 
begins  with  this  sentence,  is  directed.  On  the  contrary,  the  sense 
of  the  sentence  referred  to  was  this,  that  those  who  are  elected 
are,  by  virtue  of  this  election,  led  infallibly  to  give  up  even  the 
most  wilful  resistance,  while  in  the  case  of  others  who  are  not 
elected  this  resistance  "is  not  removed."  "This  is  a  hidden  mys- 
tery, known  only  to  God,  not  to  be  fathomed  by  human  reason, 
but  to  be  regarded  and  adored  with  reverence" — so  the  thesis  de- 
clared. It  is  indeed  admitted  that  these  words  were  "not  suffi- 
ciently 'explained,'  yes,  that  they  might  appear  offensive  even  to 
true  Lutherans"  (for  instance  to  those  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod 
who  found  much  to  object  to  in  the  modern  Missourian  mode  of 
expression,  while  in  the  matter  itself,  at  least  officially  and  as  a. 
Synod,  they  agreed  with  Missouri),  "and  therefore  should  be  re- 
tracted"; yet  at  the  same  time,  as  a  sort  of  justification  of  these 
words,  reference  was  made  to  "men  like  Jacob  Andrese,  Chemnitz, 
Selnecker,  and  Kirchner,  the  authors  and  official  defenders  of  our 
Formula  of  Concord,  who  taught  that  if  God  wished  to  forsake 


142  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination, 

His  established  order  and  to  use  His  omnipotence,  He  could  con- 
vert all  men" — something  no  man  has  ever  denied  who  believes 
at  all  in  a  God  who  can  do  what  He  wills  (Ps.  115,  3.).  Yet  when 
Abraham  and  Paul  are  here  mentioned  with  Balth.  Meisner  as 
"extraordinary  conversions,"  which  are  said  to  take  place  "by 
an  efficacious  grace  infallibly  and  always,"  "as  it  were  through  a 
necessary  will  and  a  willing  necessity — then  we  beg  permission 
in  the  case  of  Paul  to  point  to  two  of  his  own  utterances.  One 
of  these  is  found  1  Tim.  1,  13:  "Who  was  before  a  blasphemer, 
and  a  persecutor,  and  injurious;  but  I  obtained  mercy,  because  I 
did  it  ignorantly  in  unbelief"  (Greek  on,  because);  the  second, 
Acts  26,  19:  "Whereupon,  O  King  Agrippa,  I  was"  lyv^oixriv^ 
proved,  showed  myself)  "not  disobedient  unto  the  heavenly 
vision."  The  former  proves  that  Paul's  conversion,  however 
wonderful  and  extraordinary  it  was  in  certain  respects,  neverthe- 
less did  not  take  place  without  regard  to  his  conduct;  and  the 
second,  that  he  might  have  resisted  and  frustrated  his  conversion. 
And  neither  in  the  case  of  Abraham  nor  of  Paul  can  any  trace 
of  the  "most  wilful  resistance"  be  shown. 

In  the  February  number  of  the  following  year,  1881,  "Lehre 
und  Wehre"  brings  an  article  by  Dr.  Walther  with  the  heading: 
"Sententiam  teneat,  linguam  corrigat"  (Let  him  retain  his  opin- 
ion and  correct  his  words).  Following  this  counsel  of  St.  Au- 
gustine, and  yielding  to  the  solicitation  of  his  "friends,"  he  here 
continues  to  correct  "certain  single  sentences"  in  the  Missourian 
publications,  "which  indeed  have  a  suspicious  sound."  In  the 
first  place  a  sentence  is  quoted  from  the  Report  of  the  Northern 
District  of  the  year  1868,  which  reads  as  follows,  p.  23:  "In  re- 
gard to  Luther's  expression  in  his  preface  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  saying  that  it  depends  originally  upon  God's  eternal 
providence  who  shall  and  who  shall  not  believe,  it  was  remarked 
that  if  it  depended  upon  providence  who  shall  believe,  it  certainly 
likewise  depended  upon  it  who  shall  not  believe.  Yet  this  does 
not  say  that  God  would  not  save  such  persons."  This  utterance 
of  Luther  Dr.  Walther  had  quoted  also  in  number  6  of  the  "Lu- 
theraner"  in  1880  as  a  striking  proof  for  the  genuine  Lutheran 
character  of  the  modern  Missourian  doctrine,  namely  in.  support 
of  the  assertion  that  in  the  choice  of  those  who  are  to  be  infallibly 
saved  God  did  not  regard  foreseen  faith,  but  that  saving  faith 
has  its  source  in  God's  choice  made  without  any  regard  to  man's 
faith  or  conduct.    Yet  now  he  says  he  must  admit  that  he  "him- 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestiriation  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     143 

self  was  not  fully  clear  and  certain,"  nor  is  as  yet,  as  to  what  Lu- 
ther wanted  to  say  with  these  words ;  and  that  therefore  he  should 
"either  have  interpreted  Luther's  words  according  to  the  analogy 
of  faith,  or  have  refrained  from  quoting  them  altogether,"  "since, 
without  explanation,  they  could,  from  our  Ups,  appear  suspicious 
to  our  opponents."  At  first  then  he  wanted  to  frighten  the  "op- 
ponents" by  holding  up  to  them  Luther's  mighty  authority,  and 
now  he  must  confess  that  neither  then  did  he  know,  nor  even  yet 
does  he  know,  what  Luther  wanted  to  say  with  these  words !  It 
is  certain,  if  one  does  not  want  to  admit  that  Luther,  in  writing 
the  words  referred  to,  believed  and  taught  an  absolute  predestina- 
tion, like  that  of  Augustine  and  Calvin,  he  must  either  assert 
that  Luther  wrote  what  cannot  be  understood,  or  must  admit  that 
in  these  words  he  speaks  of  predestination  in  the  wider  sense,  and 
especially  of  its  first  chief  part,  namely  of  the  eternal  institution 
of  the  universal  way  of  salvation.  For  upon  this  "it  depends 
originally  who  shall  believe  and  who  shall  not  believe,  who  can 
be  freed  from  sin  and  who  cannot  be  freed."  He  alone  shall 
come  to  faith  and  persevere  in  faith  unto  eternal  life,  and  can 
be  freed  from  sin,  who  permits  himself  to  be  led  upon  the  uni- 
versal way  of  salvation;  he  who  will  not  do  this  neither  can  nor 
shall  receive  life  everlasting  (compare  our  "Priifung,  etc.,"  p.  22 
sqq.).  But  rather  than  admit  that  Luther,  and  following  him 
Chemnitz  and  the  Confession,  has  spoken  of  predestination  in  the 
wider  sense,  thus  giving  up  a  false  view  of  the  Confession,  Dr. 
Walther  here  confesses  that  he  does  not  understand  this  famous 
passage  from  Luther,  although  he  had  used  it  against  his  "op- 
ponents" as  one  of  his  weightiest  cudgels! 

Furthermore,  Dr.  Walther  admits  that  the  following  sentence 
from  the  Report  of  '77  cannot  be  retained  (p.  59):  "The  Word  of 
God  in  truth  always  retains  its  power  wherever  it  is  preached,  and 
it  has  the  power  also  of  giving  life,  of  saving;  yet  man  is  in  such 
a  depraved  state  that  God  is  always  obliged  to  add  special  assist- 
ance" (dasz  der  Hebe  Gott  auch  immer  noch  nachdriicken  muss). 
Here  Dr.  Walther  admits  "that  the  little  word  'always'  says  too 
much,  and  more  than  we  ourselves  wished  to  say ;  for  we  too  be- 
lieve that  this  'giving  special  assistance'  by  no  means  occurs  al- 
ways, but  only  often,  only  at  times."  The  fact  that  he  did  not  wish 
to  say  more  than  this,  he  claims,  is  shown  by  his  former  writings. 
But  unfortunately  his  writings  do  not  agree  with  themselves  in 
the  doctrine  of  predestination  and  what  pertains  thereto,  so  that 


144  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestinatioji. 

this  evidence  is  not  satisfactory.  Then  too  he  claims  that  the 
Synodical  Report  does  not  say  "that  this  assistance  is  given  only 
in  the  case  of  the  elect,  and  only  because  they  are  the  elect."  "We 
know  well  that  many  are  in  hell  who  have  often  experienced  this 
assistance  of  God,  but  have  not  judged  themselves  worthy  of 
everlasting  life,  and  have  always  resisted  the  Holy  Ghost  ob- 
stinately (Acts.  VA,  45,  46;  7,  51)."  According  to  this  not  only 
the  little  word  "always,"  but  the  whole  sentence:  "Man  is  in  such 
a  depraved  state  that  God  is  always  obliged  to  give  special  as- 
sistance," should  be  retracted.  Without  "the  little  word  'al- 
ways' "  the  sentence  does  not  fit  the  context,  except  it  is  to  mean 
the  same  thing  without  this  word  as  it  means  with  it.  And  hardly 
anvone  will  read  the  sentence  in  its  connection  without  referring 
the  "assistance"  to  the  greater  grace  which  is  given  to  the  elect  in 
preference  to  the  rest,  and  must  be  given  to  every  one  who  is  to 
be  saved.  According  to  this  corection  there  still  seems  to  be, 
entirely  contrary  to  modern  Missourian  doctrine  otherwise,  an 
important  diliference  among  those  who  are  to  be  converted,  as 
some  remain  in  their  "obstinate  resistance"  in  spite  of  the  "assist- 
ance," and  others  refrain  from  it.  Or  is  there  a  second  "assist- 
ance" in  the  case  of  these  last  named,  these  who  are  converted? 
Dr.  Walther  may  attempt  to  correct  as  much  as  he  pleases,  the 
sentence  just  as  it  stands  in  the  Report  is  a  correct  expression  of 
what  lies  necessarily  in  the  modern  Missourian  doctrine;  and  if 
he  was  not  confused,  or  did  not  act  dishonestly,  he  could  not  re- 
tract it. 

Finally,  Dr.  Walther  refers  also  to  his  remarks  on  a  certain 
passage  from  Seb.  Schmidt  in  the  Report  of  77,  page  38  (see 
above  p.  94  sqq.).  These  remarks  he  had  prefaced  with  the  words : 
"Further,  Seb.  Schmidt  says  that  God  gives  a  richer  grace  to  the 
elect  than  to  the  non-elect" ;  and  yet  he  dares  to  say  in  his  correc- 
tions: "jMoreover  we  too  do  not  assert  that  the  gratia  amplior" 
(the  richer  grace)  "is  imparted  only  to  the  elect.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  are  convinced  by  the  Scriptures  that  many  who  are 
lost  have  received  this  richer  grace,  while  many  of  the  elect  who 
are  saved  have  not  become  partakers  of  it.  Thus,  for  instance, 
the  lost  inhabitants  of  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida  were  accounted 
worthy  of  richer  grace  than  the  inhabitants  of  Nineveh  who  were 
brought  to  repentance  and  grace  by  Jonah's  preaching."  As 
though  he  had  spoken  in  the  passage  referred  to  about  any  kind  of 
richer  grace  whatsoever,  and  not  about  that  especial  "grace  unto 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Sy?iod.     145 

perseverance"  as  such!  And  of  what  use  is  all  other  richer  grace 
to  a  man,  when  that  which  is  claimed  to  be  necessary  for  perse- 
verance in  faith  is  denied?  Finally,  however,  it  is  said  also  of  this 
sentence  that  "unfortunately  what  was  said  was  not  sufficiently 
complete  and  clear,"  although  this  sentence  also  does  nothing 
but  state  precisely  what  lies  necessarily  in  the  modern  Missourian 
doctrine. 

What  then  has  Dr.  Walther  retracted?  Really  and  at  bottom 
nothing.  In  the  first  place,  he  does  not  even  admit  that  these 
sentences,  in  the  connection  in  which  they  occur,  reallv  say  what 
the  "opponents"  have  found  in  them,  but  tries  all  sorts  of  ways 
to  gloss  them  over.  And  still  less  does  he  admit  that  these  sen- 
tences say  only  what  lies  necessarily  in  the  modern  Missourian 
system,  and  that  this  system  is  therefore  to  be  changed  accord- 
ingly. If  either  the  necessary  clearness  or  the  necessary  hon- 
esty had  not  been  wanting,  he  would  have  been  compelled  to  ad- 
mit that  he  must  either  hold  fast  to  these  sentences  as  they  read, 
or  that  he  must  give  up  and  retract  his  entire  new  system  as  un-Lu- 
theran  and  thoroughly  Calvinistic.  For  it  is  not  that  these  sen- 
tences say  something  that  is  foreign  to  this  system,  and  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  it;  they  express  precisely  what  is  the  very  heart 
and  soul  of  this  system.  They  are  not  thoughtless,  inconsiderate 
expressions  which  for  this  reason  should  be  retracted,  except  per- 
haps in  so  far  as  modern  Missouri  has  thoughtlessly  and  incon- 
siderately revealed  in  and  through  them  what  it  really  means. 
The  very  consequences  which,  according  to  our  conviction,  lie 
in  modern  Missourianism  and  characterize  it  as  essentially  Cal- 
vinistic find  their  adequate  expression  in  these  sentences.  How 
would  Dr.  Walther,  who  everywhere,  and  also  where  these  sen- 
tences are  found,  endeavors  anxiously  to  guard  himself  against 
Calvinism,  have  come  to  utter  these  sentences,  if  they  did  not  be- 
long to  the  consequences  of  his  system;  if  they  were  not  neces- 
sarily implied  in  and  with  it?  The  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits;  the 
man  and  his  real  position  very  frequently  by  his  unguarded  utter- 
ances. 

At  the  close  of  the  article  spoken  of  Dr.  Walther  declares 
the  following  to  be  'the  real  status  conlroversige,  or  point  at  issue, 
in  the  present  doctrinal  controversy":  "Does  the  faith  foreseen 
of  God  flow  from  election,  or  does  election  flow  from  foreseen 
faith?  Does  election  rest  alone  upon  God's  mercy  and  Christ's 
merit,  or  also  upon  man's  conduct  foreseen  of  God?     Can  and 


146  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

shall  a  believing  Christian  become  and  be  certain  of  his  election, 
and  therefore  of  his  salvation,  or  can  and  shall  he  not  become  nor 
be  certain  thereof"?  Our  readers  know  from  the  foregoing-  how 
modern  Missouri  answers  these  questions,  namely  that  it  affirms 
the  first  half  of  each  of  these  three  double  questions.  But  this 
precisely  is  its  fundamental  error  that  it  makes  faith  proceed  from 
election  in  its  sense,  i.  e.  from  the  choice  of  persons  made  without 
any  regard  to  man's  conduct  toward  the  means  of  grace  and  to- 
ward the  Holy  Spirit  working  through  them.  From  this  by 
force  of  necessity  follow  all  the  above  sentences  which  Dr. 
Walther  had  to  retract  at  the  solicitation  of  his  "friends,"  so  as  to 
hide  somewhat  the  Calvinistic  character  of  his  doctrine,  at  least 
for  the  thoughtless  and  credulous.  And  from  this  follow  also  the 
assertions  that  election,  i.  e.  the  choice  of  persons,  is  made  "to 
depend"  not  "upon  God's  mercy  and  Christ's  merit  alone,"  when  it 
is  regarded  as  having  been  made  not  without  all  regard  to  man's 
conduct,  that  a  Christian  can  and  should  be  "certain,"  i.  e.  infal- 
libly, without  any  condition,"  of  his  election  and  therefore  of  his 
salvation"  (compare  above  p.  99  sqq.). 

Beside  these  seeming  corrections  in  "Lehre  und  Wehre" 
naturally  also  other  articles  are  found  aiming  to  prove  and  defend 
the  new  doctrine.  Thus  the  December  number  of  1880  contains 
such  an  article  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Walther  entitled:  "Is  the  doc- 
trine that  election  did  not  take  place  intuitu  fidei  in  conflict  with  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone?"  Naturally  the  question 
is  answered  in  the  negative;  for  if  it  were  to  be  answered  affirm- 
atively, "certainly  this  doctrine  would  be  the  most  hideous 
heresy  conceivable."  Yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  mod- 
ern Missourian  as  well  as  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  dislodge 
justification  and  faith  from  their  central  position,  and  consider 
both  to  be  merely  a  means  for  bringing  about  the  salvation  de- 
cided upon  already  before  them  and  without  essentially  regard- 
ing them.  Only  in  the  same  way  does  the  modern  Missourian 
doctrine  not  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
alone,  in  which  also  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  does  not  conflict 
with  it.  Both  do  not  need  justification  as  an  especial  act  in  time, 
as  we  have  already  seen  (above  p.  35  sq. ;  p.  128  sq.)  and  shall  see 
still  further  on.  But  that  this  is  not  the  Lutheran  standpoint 
need  not  be  demonstrated  for  our  readers.  The  following  state- 
ment is  especially  noteworthy  in  this  article  (p.  361  sq.):  "Ac- 
cordingly faith  cannot  bear  the  same  relation  to  election  as  it 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missoitri  Synod.     147 

bears  to  justification.  Election  is  not,  like  Christ's  righteousness, 
something  obtained  and  existing  for  all  men,  something  therefore 
for  all  men  to  embrace  by  faith,  appropriate,  and  become  par- 
takers of.  Election  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  decree  which,  according 
to  the  Scriptures,  as  compared  with  the  reprobate,  extends  only  to 
a  few;  for  'many  are  called,'  the  Lord  tells  us,  'but  few  are 
chosen.'  "  It  appears  to  us  that  a  blind  man  can  see  that  these 
sentences  do  not  agree  with  the  Confession  which  says  for 
instance:  "Therefore  the  entire  Holy  Trinity,  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost,  direct  all  men  to  Christ,  as  to  the  Book  of  Life, 
in  which  they  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father" 
(Jacobs'  T.,  p.  661).  For  according  to  this  statement  of  the 
Confession  "the  eternal  election  of  the  Father"  does  "exist" 
for  "all  men"  in  Christ,  because  it  has  been  "obtained"  by  Him 
"for  all,"  and  he  wJio  seeks  it  in  the  right  way,  permits  himself  to 
be  brought  to  faith  and  to  be  kept  therein,  he  shall  find  it,  and  he 
belongs  to  the  elect.  That  many  are  called  and  few  chosen  is  due 
simply  to  the  fact  that  most  of  those  who  are  called  do  not  seek 
election  in  this  way,  and  is  not  at  all  due  to  the  fact  that  election 
does  not  "exist"  for  them  from  the  start  and  has  not  been  "ob- 
tained" for  them.  Whether  I  am  one  of  the  elect  depends  on 
whether  I  am  in  Christ  through  faith  and  abide  in  Him.  It  would 
be  blasphemy  to  assert  that  God  directs  all  men  to  Christ  to 
"seek"  election  in  Him,  if  election  did  not  exist  there  for  all,  and  if 
not  all,  in  case  they  should  seek  it  in  the  right  way,  could  and 
would  be  able  to  find  it  in  Him.  For  then  God  would 
only  make  sport  of  poor  sinful  men,  telling  them  all  to 
seek  for  something  which  from  the  start  exists  only  for  the 
smallest  number  of  them.  There  is  no  question  at  all  that  elec- 
tion, according  to  our  Confession,  depends  upon  Christ  and  faith 
in  the  same  sense  as  justification  depends  upon  them;  both  have 
their  foundation  in  Christ's  merit  as  apprehended  by  faith. 

In  the  following  volumes  of  "Lehre  und  Wehre"  several  ar- 
ticles by  Rev.  (now  Prof.)  Stockhardt  are  of  special  interest  in  this 
connection,  because  he  honestly  admits  what  Dr.  Walther,  in 
order  not  to  admit  that  now  he  taught  a  different  doctrine,  had 
obstinately  denied.  In  the  August  number  of  1881,  p.  364  sqq., 
we  find  an  article  by  this  writer,  entitled:  "The  mystery  in  Elec- 
tion." Here  we  read  for  instance  on  page  367,  etc.:  "The  discre- 
tio  personarum,  the  fact  that  God,  in  time  and  in  eternity,  in  con- 
version as  well  as  in  election,  seems  to  make  a  difference  among 


148  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestinatioji. 

sinners  who  are  all  in  the  same  condemnation  and  who  all  resist 
in  the  same  way,  this  is  the  real  'mystery  in  election'.  Why  God 
deals  in  one  way  with  some  and  in  a  different  way  with  others, 
this  we  are  not  to  fathom.  The  rule  according  to  which  God  has 
chosen  and  separated  in  eternity  is  unknown  to  us."  Accord- 
ingly the  sentence:  Those  who  are  not  elected  are  not  elected  for 
the  reason  that  they  wilfully  resist,"  is  branded  as  incorrect, 
while  Dr.  Walther  just  ten  months  earlier  had  maintained  it  at 
the  Chicago  Conference  as  altogether  correct  (compare  above 
p.  130).  Rev.  Stockhardt  declares  (p.  808)  that  we  know  indeed 
from  God's  Word  "why  a  number  of  men  are  cast  aside  by  God," 
but  not  "why  God  did  not  elect  the  others"!  And  here  it  appears 
how  correctly  one  of  the  "opponents"  had  declared  at  Chicago: 
"On  page  658,  §§  52,  etc."  (Formula  of  Concord,  Jacobs'  T.)  "it 
is  said  that  there  are  indeed  mysteries  in  the  doctrine  of  predesti- 
nation. And  now  I  ask  :  If  tlie  rule  according  to  which  God  has 
chosen  were  hidden  from  us,  would  not  this  have  to  be  the  first 
mystery  here  mentioned?  I  am  convinced  that  every  one  of  our 
opponents  would  name  as  the  chief  mystery  in  predestination  this,, 
that  we  do  not  know  according  to  what  rule  God  has  proceeded. 
For  this  would  be  the  mystery  of  mysteries  in  predestination." 
(P.  83,  "Verhandlungen,  etc.")  And  what  did  Dr.  Walther  an- 
swer to  this?  "If  you  say:  'The  prjevisio  must  evidently  be 
included  according  to  the  Formula  of  Concord',  I  say:  To  be  sure, 
as  far  as  the  reprobate  are  concerned.  But  when  you  say:  'God 
has  taken  the  rule  or  norm  in  election  from  the  order  of  salvation', 
how  do  you  know  that?  .  .  .  No;  the  norm — the  Formula  of 
Concord  tells  us  clearly  and  distinctly — is  God's  mercy  and 
Christ's  most  holy  merit.  This  clear  statement  of  the  Confession 
we  will  not  relinquish"  (P.  85).  It  was  not  long,  as  shown  by 
Rev.  Stockhardt's  article,  till  this  altogether  untenable,  because 
utterlv  illogical,  position  was  abandoned.  This  was  maintained 
merely  during  the  uncertain  stage  of  transition.  When  it  was 
seen  that  the  Synod  would  submit  to  almost  anything,  the  new 
doctrine  came  boldly  forth. — Rev.  Stockhardt  indeed  here  adds 
the  remark  (p.  368):"We  emphasize  this  that  the  real  'mystery' 
is  not  the  primary  thing  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  We  do 
not  give  this  mystery  the  precedence  of  everything,  and  do  not 
draw  all  sorts  of  conclusions  from  it."  The  last  part  of  this  state- 
ment is  indeed  true,  but  not  the  first:  and  the  reason  why  modern 
Missourians  do  not  draw  the   conclusions  which   lie  inevitablv 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     149 

in  this  "mystery"  is  absolute  inconsistency,  or  even  fear.  The 
"election,"  in  the  modern  Missourian  sense  of  the  word,  as  the 
mysterious  act  of  God,  is  certainly  "the  primary  thing"  in  modern 
Missourianism,  that  upon  which  everything  depends,  every  man's 
eternal  weal  or  woe.  If  I  am  not  chosen  in  this  mysterious  way, 
then  I  simply  cannot  be  saved,  in  spite  of  all  talk  about  universal 
and  sufficient  grace.  And  if  the  fault  that  the  greater  part  is  not 
chosen,  that  for  them  therefore  there  does  not  exist  the  one  thing 
without  which  all  other  grace  is  vain  and  simply  makes  their  re- 
sponsibility, their  sin  and  damnation  the  greater — if  the  fault  for 
this  does  not  lie  in  the  non-elect  themselves,  not  in  their  wilful  and 
obstinate  resistance,  if  it  depends  only  on  their  natural  resistance 
as  common  to  all  sinful  men,  only  upon  that  resistance  which  no 
man  can  refrain  from  unless  he  receive  this  special  particular 
grace  of  election:  then  in  reality  we  have  before  us  the  Calvin- 
istic  arbitrary  separation,  even  though  Calvinistic  expressions  and 
terms  be  ever  so  carefully  rejected.  For  what  difference  does  it 
make,  as  far  as  the  inevitable  lot  of  the  non-elect  is  concerned, 
to  assert  ever  so  vigorously  and  repeatedly  that  the  reason  why 
God  did  not  elect  them  was  not  that  He  wished  to  glorify  His 
righteousness  in  them  (p.  368,  369)?  He  did  still  not  do  in  them 
what,  according  to  Missourian  and  Calvinistic  doctrine,  He 
would  have  had  to  do  in  them,  if  all  other  grace  were  indeed 
to  help  them  unto  salvation  and  not  rather  unto  greater  dam- 
nation, and  what  He  could  have  done  in  them  just  as  well  as 
in  the  elect.  According  to  the  modern  Missourian  doctrine  the 
elect  are  in  the  same  plight  as  according  to  the  old  Calvinistic 
doctrine. 

In  "Lehre  und  Wehre",  April,  1882,  p.  157  sqq.,  we  meet  an 
article  by  Rev.  Stockhardt,  entitled:  "Si  duo  faciunt  idem,  non 
est  idem"  (If  two  do  the  same  thing,  it  is  not  the  same).  In  this 
article  he  tries  to  prove  that  we  opponents  of  modern  Missouri 
do  not  agree  with  the  old  dogmaticians,  even  though  we  use  the 
same  terms  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination  as  they  do.  And 
here  we  find,  to  begin  with,  the  following  remarkable  sentence 
(p.  158)  "It  is  beyond  all  doubt  that  the  dogmaticians  of  the  17th 
century  in  some  way,  although  they  define  it  very  dififerently, 
make  election  depend  upon  faith.  When  they  set  up  the  intuitu 
fidei  as  a  sort  of  shibboleth ;  when  they  understand  the  statement 
that  God  has  chosen  those  whose  faith  He  has  foreseen,  in  the 
same  way;   when  they  bring  out  the  so-called  Syllogismus  prse- 


150  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination . 

destinatorius,  according  to  which  election  follows  logically  from 
the  universal  will  of  grace  and  from  the  foreknowledge  of  faith: 
then  they  thereby  declare  a  dependence  of  election  upon  faith. 
They  try  to  explain  somewhat  this  wonderful  mystery  of  the 
discretio  personarum,  and  to  make  it  plausible  to  reason.  And 
herein  they  have  erred  and  have  deviated  from  the  Scriptures  and 
the  Symbol.  Herein  we  do  not  agree  with  them."  Here  for 
once  is  refreshing  honesty  and  directness  compared  with  the 
former  deceptive  assertions  of  Dr.  Walther,  saying  that  the  dog- 
maticians  of  the  17th  century  were  on  the  side  of  modern  Missouri 
in  the  doctrine  itself  (compare  above  p.  113  sq.;  128;  131;  65; 
67  sq.).  But  in  spite  of  this  Rev.  Stockhardt  thinks  that  we  op- 
ponents of  modern  Missouri  do  not  agree  with  the  dogmaticians; 
and  this,  in  the  first  place,  because  "they  took  their  position  not  in 
opposition  to  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  Symbols, 
but  in  opposition  to  Calvinism  and  tried  with  all  energy  to  keep 
out  of  Lutheran  doctrine  the  decretum  absolutum  Calvinisticum" ; 
secondly,  because  "the  best  of  these  dogmaticians  accept  and 
defend  propositions  which  contradict  the  theory  that  election  is 
based  on  omniscience" — whereas  we  "opponents",  as  modern 
Missouri  asserts,  do  not  do  all  this.  But  an  assertion  is  in  itself 
no  proof.  We  "opponents"  in  taking  our  position  have  in  view 
the  same  opposition  as  the  dogmaticians.  And  what  Gerhard 
for  instance,  whom  Rev.  Stockhardt  names  as  a  representative 
of  the  "best  dogmaticians",  teaches  concerning  predestination, 
we  "opponents"  are  ready  to  subscribe  to  throughout,  that  is  in 
the  sense  of  Gerhard,  not  in  the  sense  of  modern  Missouri.  For 
modern  Missouri  tells  us  that  there  is  a  contradiction  between 
the  various  statements  of  Gerhard.  In  certain  of  them,  they  say, 
he  unconsciously  takes  the  standpoint  of  modern  Missouri,  and 
even  refutes  what  he  says  in  others,  especially  in  regard  to  the 
intuitu  fidei,  as  "his  sound  Lutheran  consciousness  broke  through 
the  error  of  his  reason."  Yet  Rev.  Stockhardt  does  not  dare  to 
assert  definitely,  as  was  Dr.  Walther's  habit,  that  if  Gerhard  were 
now  living,  he  would  now  be  on  the  side  of  modern  Missouri. 
He  merely  says:  "We  feel  assured,  although  we. have  no  positive 
proof,  that,  for  instance,  Gerhard,  and  others  like  him,  if  the  truth 
of  the  Scriptures  had  been  made  very  clear  to  him  in  this  article,, 
would  simply  have  thrown  aside  his  own  additions  without  much 
hesitation"  (p.  159).  In  regard  to  this  we  would  remark:  In  the 
first  place,  it  sounds  strange  to  say  that  "the  truth  of  the  Script- 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  i)i  the  Missouri  Sj>iod.     151 

ures"  was  not  "very  clear"  to  a  man  like  Gerhard  "in  this  article", 
since  he  had  Luther,  Chemnitz,  and  the  Formula  of  Concord 
constantly  before  him;  and  modern  Alissourians  claim  that  these 
three  give  clear  and  distinct  expression  to  the  true  Biblical  mod- 
ern Missourian  doctrine.  Secondly,  it  is  hardly  credible  that 
our  old  dogmaticians,  these  men  of  deep  penetration,  whose  men- 
tal work  even  rationalists  like  Karl  Hase  regard  with  respect, 
should  have  been  so  foolish  as  to  insist  unyieldingly  upon  a  doc- 
trine, to  understand  which,  as  modern  Missouri  claims,  is  of  no 
benefit  for  salvation  and  consolation,  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion. There  is  no  question  at  all,  with  all  their  penetration  and 
all  the  consistency  of  their  thinking  they  found  no  contradiction  in 
their  own  statements,  namely  that  on  the  one  hand  salvation  and 
all  pertaining  and  leading  to  it  is  simply  a  gift  of  grace,  and  that 
on  the  other  hand  the  choice  of  those  who  are  to  be  saved  infal- 
libly not  only  did,  but  also  of  a  necessity,  took  place  in  view 
of, faith,  if  the  horribile  decretum  of  the  Calvinists  was  to  be 
avoided.  Simply  compare  the  statements  above,  p.  24  sqq.  They 
harmonize  the  two  sets  of  statements,  which  according  to  modern 
Missouri  are  contradictory,  in  precisely  the  same  way  as  old  Mis- 
souri did  and  as  we  still  do  (compare  above  p.  55  s(]q.,  (51  sq.). 
If  modern  Missourians  were  altogether  honest  they  would  have  to 
put  the  old  dogmaticians  and  us  into  one  class.  But  they  mete 
with  a  double  measure,  and  thus  hide  from  many  who  lack  pene- 
tration the  undeniable  fact,  that  not  we  alone,  but  the  entire 
Lutheran  Church  since  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  their  "op- 
ponent". 

October  13,  1880,  a  week  after  the  close  of  the  General  Pas- 
toral Conference  in  Chicago,  the  meeting  of  the  Western  District 
for  this  year  began ;  this  was  the  District  whose  Reports  for  the 
year  1877  and  1879  had  given  rise  to  the  doctrinal  controversy. 
"Since  sentences  in  our  last  two  Reports,  especially  in  that  of 
last  year,  have  been  met  with  opposition  in  the  Synodical  Con- 
ference, the  District  found  itself  necessitated  to  set  aside  the 
theme  still  before  it  this  year,  and  to  treat  once  more  of  the  doc- 
trine of  predestination  with  especial  reference  to  the  objections 
that  have  been  raised."  So  reads  the  Report  in  regard  to  the 
"Doctrinal  Discussion,"  the  purpose  of  which  was,  as  stated,  to 
defend  the  modern  Missourian  doctrine  against  "the  objections 
that  have  been  raised."  The  theses  were  six  in  number,  of  which, 
however,  only  four  were  discussed.     The  first  and  the  second. 


152  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

which  are  the  most  important,  both  as  regards  their  contents  and 
their  treatment,  read  as  follows:  "Thesis  I.  The  doctrine  that 
election  is  a  cause  of  the  salvation  of  the  elect  and  of  all  pertain- 
ing thereto  (a),  as  also  that  alone  God's  mercy  and  Christ's  most 
holy  merit,  and  nothing  that  God  has  foreseen  in  man,  is  the  cause 
of  election  (b),  is  not  Calvinistic  (c),  but  the  pure  Lutheran  doc- 
trine which  our  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  acknowledged  pub- 
licly as  her  own  300  years  ago,  and  laid  down  for  all  time,  on  the 
basis  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  the  Formula  of  Concord;  hence 
those  rejecting  this  doctrine  cannot  be  regarded  as  Lutherans 
true  to  the  Confessions  in  this  point,  a.  Formula  of  Concord, 
p.  525,  §  5;  651,  §  8.— b.  F.  C.  528,  §  20;  605,  §  87.  88;  657,  §  43. 
- — c.  F.  C.  528,  §  21.  Thesis  IL  Nor  is  this  the  doctrine  of  an 
election  in  the  wider  sense,  but  in  its  strict  or  proper  sense.  F.  C. 
651,  §  9;  653,  §  24.  Compare  651,  etc.,  §  11-23."  A  comparison 
of  the  elaboration  of  these  theses  with  what  had  been  said  before 
and  has  been  set  forth  above  brings  out  no  new  argument,  and 
therefore  we  treat  this  Report  with  greater  brevity. 

As  compared  with  other  utterances  the  admission  contained 
in  the  introduction  to  these  theses  is  noteworthy:  "We  have — 
this  we  willingly  confess — enkindled  the  fire"  (p.  23).  In  the 
elaboration  of  the  theses  the  "opponents"  are  constantly  treated 
as  teaching  an  election  on  account  of  faith,  and  this  clearly  in 
opposition  to  the  old  dogmaticians  (p.  34  sqq.).  But  no  proof  is 
brought,  and  none  can  be  brought,  that  the  "opponents"  really 
hold  the  non-Lutheran  doctrine  ascribed  to  them.  And  when  it 
is  said  (p.  35  sq.):  "We  indeed  cannot  ignore  that  in  the  17th 
century  the  doctrine  that  God  has  elected,  not  indeed  on  account 
of  faith,  yet  in  view  of  faith,  became  established  in  the  Lutheran 
Church,"  this  surely  shows  clearly  and  distinctly  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  conviction  of  the  most  orthodox  and  sagacious  theo- 
logians of  our  Church,  Seb.  Schmidt,  John  Gerhard,  John 
Olearius,  Andreas  Quenstedt,  Abraham  Calov,  Conrad  Dann- 
hauer,  from  whom  quotations  are  given  on  this  point,  and  to 
whom  just  as  many  illustrious  names  might  be  added,  for  in- 
stance Hunnius,  Hutter,  Leyser,  Konig,  Musseus,  one  may  well 
teach  election  in  view  of  faith,  and  maintain  it  as  a  bulwark 
against  the  Calvinists,  without  making  faith  an  efficacious  or 
meritorious  cause  of  election,  and  without  teaching  an  election  on 
account  of  faith.  And  this  conviction  of  our  old  theologians,  who, 
as  far  as  knowledge  of  the  Bible  and  of  Lutheran  doctrine,  as  well 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  tlie  Missouri  Synod.     153 

as  sagacity  and  consistency  of  thinking  is  concerned,  certainly 
need  not  dofif  their  hats  to  any  Missourian,  we  "opponents"  share 
for  conscience'  sake  and  from  a  full  conviction  on  our  own  part. 
Their  numerous  statements,  in  which  they  reject,  in  spite  of  their 
most  positive  adherence  to  an  election  in  view  of  faith,  every  idea 
of  election  on  account  of  faith,  or  of  faith  as  an  efihcacious  or 
meritorious  cause  of  election,  are  therefore  not  opposed  to  our 
position,  but  are  in  favor  of  it,  as  being  the  old  Lutheran  position. 
That  is,  the  position  which  the  Lutheran  Church  assumed  at  once, 
and  assumed  fully  conscious  of  its  agreement  with  the  Confes- 
sion, when  it  became  necessary  to  face  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of 
predestination;  and  this  is  the  position  which  has  been  recog- 
nized alike  by  friend  and  foe  as  that  of  the  Lutheran  Church  up  to 
the  time  of  the  "reformatory"  attempts  of  modern  Missouri,  i.  e. 
for  about  300  years. 

On  page  40  we  read:  "The  relation  of  faith  to  election 
differs  from  that  of  faith  to  justification.  God  did  not  elect  all  men 
to  salvation  and  then  tell  them:  Now  you  may  take  out  salvation 
for  yourselves  by  faith.  Election  is  not  universal  as  is  justifica- 
tion, but  individual  or,  as  the  Latinists  say,  "particular";  for  the 
Savior  says:  'Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen.'  Therefore 
man  is  not  to  take  out  election  for  himself  by  faith,  so  as  to  be- 
come one  of  the  elect;  for  election  has  taken  place  already  in 
■eternity.  He  who  is  elected,  is  elected  already  before  the  founda- 
tions of  the  world  were  laid,  and  faith  is  now  to  embrace,  not 
election,  but  Christ's  merit,  so  as  to  obtain  the  salvation  which  is 
already  adjudged  to  it  by  election."  This  at  first  appears  to  be 
correct,  but  after  closer  examination  it  turns  out  to  be  nothing 
but  a  jumble  of  un- Lutheran  and  illogical  assertions.  We  call 
these  assertions  un-Lutheran,  because  they  contradict  flatly  not 
only  what  our  best  dogmaticians  say  in  regard  to  the  equal  po- 
sition of  faith  in  election  and  in  justification  (compare  the  strong 
utterances  of  L.  Hutter  above  p.  27  sq.),  but  also  what  the  Con- 
fession declares,  "The  entire  Holy  Trinity,  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost,  direct  all  men  to  Christ,  as  to  the  Book  of  Life,  in  which 
they  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father"  (Jacobs'  Tr. 
p.  6G1 ;  compare  above  p.  146  sq.),  according  to  which  it  is  entirely 
right  to  say  to  all  men:  "Now  you  may  take  out  election  for 
yourselves  by  faith."  For  election  as  the  eternal  foreordination 
unto  the  infallible  attainment  of  salvation  is,  according  to  the 
gracious  will  of  God,  as  well  also  as  according  to  the  merit  of 


154  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predestination. 

Christ,  universal  from  the  very  start,  just  as  much  as  is  the  eternal 
institution  of  the  universal  way  of  salvation  in  general;  that  is, 
as  far  as  merely  God's  love  and  mercy  is  concerned.  He  wanted 
to  ordain,  and  as  far  as  Christ's  merit  in  itself  is  concerned.  He 
could  ordain  all  men  unto  the  infallible  attainment  of  salvation, 
and  in  the  universal  order  of  salvation  He  has  made  it  possible  for 
all  men  without  exception  to  come  to  faith  and  to  persevere 
therein,  and  thus  to  appropriate  Christ's  merit  as  the  sole  con- 
dition of  actual  election  unto  salvation.  Since  now  God  knew  by 
virtue  of  His  omniscience  who  among  men  would  permit  himself 
to  be  brought  upon  the  universal  way  of  salvation  unto  persever- 
ing faith  in  Christ,  and  since  He  was  governed  Himself  in  election 
by  this  foreknowledge:  therefore,  we  say  with  the  Confesion  to 
every  man :  Seek  your  election  in  Christ.  In  Him  it  is  present, 
and  in  Him  you  can  find  it.  If  you  believe  in  Christ  as  your 
Savior  and  persevere  in  this  faith,  which  you  as  well  as  every  man 
can  do  by  virtue  of  the  grace  and  power  of  God  offered  to  all  in 
the  Word  and  Sacrament,  then,  beyond  all  doubt,  you  belong  to 
the  number  of  those  chosen  in  all  eternity.  But  this  conclusion, 
so  full  of  consolation  for  all  men,  follows  only  from  the  foregoing 
old  Lutheran  premise — another  proof  for  the  complete  agreement 
of  the  doctrine  of  our  old  dogmaticians  with  that  of  the  Confes- 
sion, yea,  in  fact,  for  its  necessary  deduction  from  the  doctrine 
of  the  Confession.  We  call  the  above  assertions  illogical,  because 
they  mix  up  universal  and  personal  justification  and  con- 
found the  two.  When  we  "opponents"  claim  with  our 
old  teachers  that  faith  has  the  same  position  in  elec- 
tion as  in  justification,  we  of  course  mean,  as  in  the  elec- 
tion of  persons,  so  also  in  personal  justification,  and 
not  in  the  universal  justification  which  has  taken  place  for 
all  men  in  Christ.  And  here  we  assert  with  our  old  teachers: 
Just  as,  notwithstanding  universal  justification,  no  man  is  or  can 
be  personally  justified  and  saved  who  does  not  appropriate  and' 
hold  fast  Christ's  merit  in  faith ;  thus  also  God,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  election  in  the  sense  stated  above  is  from  the  start  universal, 
neither  did  nor  could  foreordain  any  man  personally  unto  the  in- 
fallible attainment  of  salvation,  of  whom  He  did  not  foresee  that 
he  would  apropriate  Christ's  merit  in  persevering  faith.  The 
indispensable  condition  of  the  election,  as  well  as  of  the  justifi- 
cation, of  individual  persons  is  the  appropriated  merit  of  Christ;, 
otherwise  every  man  would  be  personally  elected  and  personally 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     155 

justified,  and  would  be  infallibly  saved.  But  the  appropriation  of 
Christ's  merit  takes  place  only  by  faith.  It  is  selfevident  that  in 
election,  as  it  took  place  in  eternity  before  the  existence  of  a  single 
human  being,  faith  is  regarded  as  foreseen,  whilst  in  personal 
justification,  as  it  takes  place  in  time,  it  is  regarded  as  present. 
But  this  is  also  the  only  difference.  The  actual  relation  of  faith  to 
the  salvation  and  to  the  justification  of  individual  persons  is  pre- 
cisely the  same.  This  is  Lutheran  doctrine.  Confused  talk  about 
a  universal  justification,  which,  rightly  understood,  is  essentially 
nothing  more  than  Christ's  merit  as  it  exists  and  suffices,  accord- 
ing to  God's  own  judicial  judgment,  for  all  men,  cannot  alter  this, 
however  much  it  may  hide  it  from  unthinking  people.  Faith, 
which  (logically  and  according  to  God's  foreknowledge)  precedes 
election  and  justification  (as  it  takes  place  in  time  and  actually), 
embraces  the  very  same  thing;  Christ's  merit,  present  and  suffi- 
cient, according  to  God's  judicial  sentence,  for  all  men,  or,  which 
is  entirely  the  same,  universal  justification,  i.  e.,  the  merciful 
declaration,  made  in  Christ's  resurrection  from  the  dead,  that  His 
merit  is  really  present  and  sufficient  for  all  men.  Faith  does  not 
precede  election  and  justification,  as  based  on  God's  antecedent 
will  (above  p.  57;  02),  and  as  thus  existing  for  all  men,  and  in  so 
far  universal;  but  it  precedes  personal  election  and  justification  as 
based  on  the  subsequent  will;  and  in  both  instances  faith  does 
not,  in  the  first  place,  embrace  what  follows  it,  but  what  precedes 
it.  The  relation  is  therefore  the  same  in  both  cases.  "The  relation 
of  faith  to  election"  does  not  "differ  from  that  of  faith  to  justifica- 
tion." And  just  as  little  as  justification,  because  it  presupposes 
Christ's  merit  embraced  by  faith,  and  therefore  takes  place  "in 
view  of  faith,"  has  another  "cause"  than  "God's  mercy  and 
Christ's  most  holy  merit";  just  so  little  is  another  "cause,"  dif- 
ferent from  these  two,  ascribed  to  election  by  making  election  to 
have  taken  place  in  view  of  faith,  and  faith  to  precede  it  (logically 
and  in  God's  foreknowledge).  Confusion  and  inconsistency  is 
altogether  on  the  part  of  modern  Missouri,  and  by  no  means  on 
the  part  of  our  old  theologians,  as  though  they  had  unconsciously 
mingled  heterogeneous  elements  (compare  above  p.  149  sq.). 

From  the  11th  to  the  21st  of  May,  1881,  the  General  Synod 
of  Missouri  and  other  States  met  for  the  third  time  as  a  delegate 
synod,  this  time  in  Ft.  Wayne,  Ind.  "The  most  important  event 
since  the  last  meeting  of  the  General  Synod  is,  without  doubt,  the 
controversy  on  the  doctrine  of  predestination.      Its  origin  and 


156  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

cause  is  known.     Unfortunately  there  will  be  no  time  to  discuss 

the  doctrine  itself But  one  thing  (in  all  fairness)  we 

justly  could  and  should  do.  Since  the  doctrine  concerned  has  al- 
ready been  set  forth  in  our  publications  with  all  fullness,  and  since 
it  has  been  repeatedly  and  thoroughly  discussed  in  larger  and 
smaller  Conferences,  and  since  finally  also  on  our  part  everything 
has  been  removed  which  might  ofifend  an  honest  Christian,  cer- 
tainly, now  that  the  representatives  of  all  our  synodical  congrega- 
tions are  for  the  first  time  assembled  again,  the  time  has  come  for 
the  Synod  also  as  such  to  acknowledge  publicly  the  doctrine  set 
forth  in  our  publications  as  being  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures and  of  our  Symbols,  and  to  express  its  appreciation  of  the 
worthy  conduct  its  leaders  have  maintained  in  this  controversy 
in  spite  of  many  temptations  to  the  contrary."  So  reads  the  in- 
troduction to  the  "President's  Report"  (p.  17  of  the  Synodical 
Minutes.)  This  is  enough  to  characterize  the  position  of  the 
"leaders"  fully;  they  simply  expect  the  Synod,  without 
any  further  discussion  in  detail,  to  acknowledge  as  Biblical  and 
symbolical  what  they  have  published  heretofore !  So  too  we  read 
in  the  introductory  words  to  "I.  The  position  of  Synod  as  such 
toward  the  present  controversy  in  its  own  midst" :  "What  seems  to 
be  the  duty  of  Synod  is  this,  to  acknowledge  the  doctrine  hitherto 
set  forth  and  defended  in  its  publications"  (p.  27).  And  this,  al- 
though the  "Synod  as  such"  had  as  yet  never  discussed  the 
doctrine  nor  considered  the  objections  of  the  "opponents", 
not  even  in  its  single  Districts;  to  say  nothing  of  the 
many  lay  delegates,  the  fewest  of  whom,  if  any  at  all, 
were  conscious  of  what  really  was  at  stake  in  the  doctrinal  con- 
troversy. But,  of  course,  the  subject  had  been  treated  in  Pastoral 
Conferences,  and  "for  further  doctrinal  discussion  the  extra  meet- 
ing of  the  General  Pastoral  Conference  has  again  been  called" 
(p.  17) ;  "Lehre  und  Wehre",  the  periodical  intended  for  pastors, 
has  been  filled  for  years  with  all  sorts  of  learned  articles,  endeavor- 
ing to  prove  that  what  had  been  generally  considered  Lutheran 
for  300  years,  what  the  lay  members  also  of  the  Missouri  Synod, 
within  as  well  as  outside  of  its  borders,  had  learned  as  Lutheran 
doctrine  in  the  Catechism  and  in  devotional  books,  was  false  and 
contrary  to  the  Bible  and  to  the  Confession — this  was  sufiBcient 
for  requesting  the  Synod,  the  lay  delegates, of  course,  included, 
simply  "to  acknowledge  what  had  hitherto  been  set  forth  and  de- 
fended" by  the  Semi-Calvinists  at  St.  Louis,  without  authority  of 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     157 

Synod,  "in  its  publications"!  What  if  any  other  synodical  body 
had  proceeded  in  this  way!  How  these  Missouri  "leaders" 
would  then  have  accused  them  of  despising-  and  betraying  the 
most  sacred  rights  of  congregations!  But  for  us  this  mode  of 
procedure  is  only  one  more  proof  of  the  Romish  spirit  of  infalli- 
bility which  frequently  revealed  itself  in  Missouri  during  the  doc- 
trinal controversy  (compare  above  p.  138).  But  for  the  sake  of 
appearance,  as  though  also  the  lay  delegates  and  the  congrega- 
tions they  represented  had  been  sufficiently  regarded  in  this  re- 
spect, the  Synod  resolved,  at  the  suggestion  of  a  committee  com- 
posed of  all  the  synodical  Presidents  and  of  the  professors  of  the 
theological  faculties,  who  had  been  directed  to  prepare  a  report 
outlining  further  action,  "to  assume  as  its  confessional  expression 
in  the  doctrine  of  predestination  the  18  propositions  published  in 
the  'Lutheraner',  Vol.  o(»,  numbers  2-!V'  (p.  33),  although  these 
propositions  did  not  at  all  treat  the  point  in  controversy  (compare 
above  p.  Ill  sq.)!  These  propositions,  of  which  it  was  believed  that 
Synod  might  assume  that  "they  are  known  to  all  our  congrega- 
tions, and  have  doubtlessly  been  read  also  by  every  one  of  the  lay 
delegates",  read  as  follows : 

"1.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  God  has  loved  the 
whole  world  from  eternity,  has  created  all  men  for  salvation  and 
none  for  damnation,  and  earnestly  desires  the  salvation  of  all  men; 
and  hence  we  heartily  reject  and  condemn  the  contrary  Calvinistic 
doctrine. — 2.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  the  Son  of  God 
has  come  into  the  world  for  all  men,  has  borne  and  atoned  for  the 
sins  of  all  men,  has  perfectly  redeemed  all  men,  none  excepted; 
and  hence  we  heartily  reject  and  condemn  the  contrary  Calvin- 
istic doctrine. — 3.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  God  earn- 
estly calls  all  men  through  the  means  of  grace,  i.  e.  with  the  inten- 
tion of  bringing  them  through  these  means  unto  repentance  and 
unto  faith,  and  of  preserving  them  therein  to  the  end,  and  of  thus 
finally  saving  them,  wherefore  God  offers  them  through  these 
means  of  grace  the  salvation  purchased  by  Christ's  atonement, 
and  the  power  of  accepting  this  salvation  by  faith ;  and  hence  we 
heartily  reject  and  condemn  the  contrary  Calvinistic  doctrine. — 1. 
We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  no  man  is  lost  because  God 
would  not  save  him,  or  because  God  with  His  grace  passed  him 
by,  or  because  He  did  not  offer  the  grace  of  perseverance  to 
him  also  and  would  not  bestow  it  upon  him ;  but  that  all  men  who 
are  lost  perish  by  their  own  fault,  namely  on  account  of  their  unbe- 


158  The  Presejit  Controversy  on  Predestmation. 

lief,  and  because  they  have  obstinately  resisted  the  Word  and  grace 
of  God  to  the  end,  whose  "contempt  for  the  Word  is  not  God's 
knowledge  (vel  prsescientia  vel  prgedestinatio),  but  the  perverse 
will  of  man,  who  rejects  and  perverts  the  means  and  the  instrument 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  God  offers  him  through  the  call,  and 
resists  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  wishes  to  be  efficacious,  and  works 
through  the  Word,  as  Christ  says  (Matth.  23,  37):  'How  often 
would  I  have  gathered  thee  together,  and  ye  would  not'.  (Form- 
ula of  Concord,  Jacobs'  T.  p.  656  etc.)  Hence  we  heartily  reject 
and  condemn  the  contrary  Calvinistic  doctrine. — 5.  We  believe, 
teach  and  confess  that  the  persons  concerned  in  election  or  pre- 
destination are  only  true  believers,  who  believe  to  the  end,  or  who 
come  to  faith  at  the  end,  of  their  lives;  and  hence  we  reject  and 
condemn  the  error  of  Huber,  that  election  is  not  particular,  but 
universal,  and  concerns  all  men. — 6.  We  believe,  teach,  and  con- 
fess that  divine  election  is  immutable,  and  hence  that  not  one  of 
the  elect  can  become  reprobate  and  be  lost,  but  that  every  one 
of  the  elect  is  surely  saved;  and  hence  we  heartily  reject  and  con- 
demn the  contrary  Huberian  error. — 7.  We  believe,  teach,  and 
confess  that  it  is  folly  and  dangerous  to  souls,  leading  either  to 
fleshly  security  or  to  despair,  when  men  attempt  to  become  or 
to  be  certain  of  their  election  or  of  their  future  salvation  by  search- 
ing out  the  eternal  mysterious  decree  of  God;  and  hence  we 
heartily  reject  and  condemn  the  contrary  doctrine  as  a  piece  of 
pernicious  fanaticism. — 8.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  a 
believing  Christian  should  try  from  the  revealed  Word  of  God  to 
become  sure  of  his  election;  and  hence  we  heartily  reject  and  con- 
demn the  contrary  papistic  error,  that  a  man  can  become  and  be 
certain  of  his  election  and  salvation  only  through  a  new  immediate 
revelation. — 9.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess:  1)  that  election 
does  not  consist  of  the  mere  foreknowledge  of  God,  as  to  which 
men  will  be  saved ;  2)  also  that  election  is  not  the  mere  purpose  of 
God  to  redeem  and  save  mankind,  for  which  reason  it  might  be 
termed  universal,  embracing  all  men  generally;  3)  that  election 
does  not  concern  temporary  believers  (Luke  8,  13);  4)  that 
election  is  not  the  mere  decree  of  God  to  save  all  those  who  shall 
believe  to  the  end;  and  hence  we  heartily  reject  and  condemn  the 
contrary  errors  of  the  rationalists,  Huberites,  and  Arminians. — 
10.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  the  cause  which  moved 
God  to  choose  the  elect  is  His  grace  and  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ 
alone,  and  not  any  good  thing  God  has  foreseen  in  the  elect,  not 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     159 

€ven  the  faith  foreseen  of  God  in  them,  and  hence  we  reject  and 
condemn  the  contrary  doctrines  of  the  Pelagians,  Semi-Pelagians, 
and  Synergists  as  blasphemous,  frightful,  subversive  of  the  gospel 
and  therefore  of  the  entire  Christian  religion. — 11.  We  believe, 
teach,  and  confess  that  election  is  not  the  mere  foresight  or  fore- 
knowledge of  the  salvation  of  the  elect,  but  also  a  cause  of  their 
salvation  and  of  all  belonging  thereto,  and  hence  we  heartily  re- 
ject and  condemn  the  contrary  doctrines  of  the  Arminians,  the 
Socinians,  and  of  all  synergists.— 12.  We  believe,  teach  and 
confess  that  God  has  'still  kept  secret  and  concealed  much  con- 
cerning this  mystery,  and  reserved  it  alone  for  His  wisdom  and 
knowledge',  which  no  man  can  or  should  search  out,  aud  hence 
we  reject  what  some  would  inquire  concerning  this  that  is  not 
revealed,  and  what  they  would  harmonize  with  their  reason  in 
those  things  that  seem  to  contradict  our  reason;  whether  this 
is  found  in  Calvinistic,  or  in  Pelagian-synergistic  doctrine. — 13. 
We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  it  is  not  only  neither  useless 
nor  even  dangerous,  but  rather  necessary  and  wholesome,  to 
present  publicly  also  to  our  Christian  people  the  mysterious  doc- 
trine of  predestination,  as  far  as  it  is  clearly  revealed  in  God's 
Word,  and  hence  we  do  not  agree  with  those  who  think  that  this 
doctrine  must  either  be  entirely  concealed,  or  must  be  reserved 
only  for  the  disputations  of  the  learned."  ("Synodalbericht",  p. 
33-35.) 

"Hereupon  the  question  was  put  to  the  Synod  whether  all 
were  ready  to  vote,  and  when  the  answer  yes  was  given  on  all 
sides,  the  following  question  was  submitted:  'Does  the  Synod 
acknowledge  the  doctrine  of  predestination  as  set  forth  in  our 
publications,  so  far  as  it  is  summarized  in  the  present  13  propo- 
sitions, as  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  of  the  Lutheran 
Confession?'  The  great  majority  answered  a  loud  and  joyful 
Yea  to  this  question!  A  very  small  minority  answered  Nay! 
When  now  each  one  of  the  minority  was  requested  to  declare  in 
what  sense  he  had  voted  Nay,  the  following  pastors  made  declara- 
tions as  here  stated: 

Allwardt:  'I  voted  in  the  negative  not  because  I  reject 
these  13  Theses,  but  because  I  know  that  I  cannot  subscribe  some 
of  them  in  the  same  sense  as  this  is  done  by  others.  Much  more 
has  been  published  in  our  publications  on  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination than  these  theses.  Much  of  this  I  hold  to  be  erroneous. 
The  question  submitted  to  Synod,  however,  does  not  refer  to  the 


160  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

theses  alone,  but  to  everything  'so  far  as  it  is  summarized  in  the 
present  18  propositions'.  In  addition  to  this,  theses  10  and  11 
contain  passages  from  the  Confession  the  sense  of  which  is  now 
in  dispute  among  us.  So  I  cannot  subscribe  these  theses  in  the 
same  sense  as  Synod ;  and  honesty  demands  that  I  state  this.  For 
this  reason  I  voted  Nay.' 

H.  Ernst:  'When  I  voted  Nay,  I  did  not  wish  to  say  that  I 
reject  all  the  present  propositions.  I  most  heartily  accept  most 
of  them  with  Synod.  My  Nay  was  meant  especially  for  the  10th 
and  11th  propositions.  And  these  too,  as  far  as  their  language 
goes,  I  can  and  do  accept.  But,  of  course,  I  must  confess  that 
the  sense  which  I  connect  with  the  language  of  these  propositions 
differs  from  that  which  is  connected  with  this  language  on  the 
part  of  others.  I  too  believe  and  confess  that  the  moving  cause 
in  election  is  not  any  good  thing  foreseen  of  God  in  man,  not  even 
faith,  but  God's  grace  and  Christ's  merit  alone;  but,  of  course, 
the  latter  not  merely  in  so  far  as  it  is  obtained  by  Christ,  but  also 
in  so  far  as  it  is  appropriated  by  man  through  faith.  I  too  confess 
with  the  Formula  of  Concord  that  election  is  a  cause  'which  pro- 
cures, works,  helps  and  promotes  our  salvation  and  what  pertains 
thereto.'  By  this  election,  however,  I  understand  not  merely  the 
choice  of  certain  persons  and  their  ordination  unto  faith  and  unto 
salvation,  but  first  of  all  and  above  all  the  preparation  of  salvation 
in  general,  the  institution  of  the  universal  way  of  salvation. 
Mainly  on  account  of  the  first  part  of  election  I  say  that  it  is  a  cause 
of  faith.     To  declare  this  my  position  I  vote  Nay.' 

Rohe :  T  agree  with  the  declaration  of  Rev.  Ernst,  and  would 
add:  It  has  here  been  stated  explicitly  by  Dr.  Walther  that  in 
these  propositions  the  doctrine  of  a  particular  election  unto  re- 
pentance, unto  faith,  etc.,  is  to  be  firmly  maintained,  and  that  is 
what  I  cannot  accept;  for  I  do  not  find  this  doctrine  in  the  Scrip- 
ti;res  and  in  the  Confession."     (P.  40-42.) 

The  Revs.  J.  H.  Dormann,  Biihl,  and  P.  Eirich  stated  that 
they  agreed  with  these  declarations.  And  these  men  had  the 
right,  formally  as  well  as  materially,  of  thus  declaring  themselves. 
For  them  simply  to  have  adopted  the  language  of  the  13  propo- 
sitions would  not  have  been  an  open  and  honest  confession;  for 
these  contain  expressions  and  declarations  which  had  been  under- 
stood and  interpreted  differently  during  the  controversy,  es- 
pecially propositions  10  and  11.  Besides  this,  by  adopting  these 
13  propositions  "the  doctrine  hitherto  set  forth  and  defended  in" 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     161 

the  Missouri  "publications"  was  to  be  "acknowledged"  (p.  -7; 
compare  p.  17).  Moreover,  it  can  be  easily  demonstrated  that 
all  the  modern  Missourian  Calvinistic  figments  may  find  lodging 
in  these  propositions,  simply  by  taking  them  in  the  modern  Mis- 
sourian sense;  and  self-evidently  the  "leaders",  together  with  their 
conscious  adherents,  did  take  them  in  this  sense,  although,  per- 
haps, not  even  a  majority  of  the  delegates.  Thus,  for  instance, 
the  1st  and  2nd  propositions  were  certainly  not  meant  to  exclude 
what  Dr.  Walther  had  still  declared  in  the  preceding  December 
number  of  "Lehre  und  Wehre",  namely  that  election,  without 
which  no  man  can  be  saved  (Report  of  '77,  p.  21,  and  elsewhere, 
see  above  p.  72),  has  not  been  obtained  and  does  not  exist  for  all 
(above,  p.  110),  although  this  election  has  in  no  way  whatever  re- 
garded the  conduct  of  men.  Accordingly,  the  universal  and  earn- 
est will  of  God's  grace  and  the  universal  and  all-sufficient  merit 
of  Christ,  spoken  of  in  these  first  two  propositions,  must  still  be 
understood  in  the  modern  Missourian  manner,  namely,  as  not  in- 
cluding for  the  majority  of  men,  from  the  very  start  and  without 
their  especial  fault,  that  without  which  all  else  is  insufficient  for 
the  actual  attainment  of  salvation,  namely  election.  And  in  the 
same  way  propositions  8  and  1  are  not  meant  to  exclude  this  that 
without  election  unto  faith  no  man  can  obtain  persevering  faith, 
and  that  nevertheless  this  election  does  not  exist  for  the  great 
majority  of  mankind;  in  other  words,  the  universal  grace  con- 
tained in  the  means  of  grace  brings  no  man  actually  unto  salva- 
tion, without  the  addition  of  that  particular  grace  of  election  which 
is  bestowed,  without  any  regard  to  man's  conduct,  only  upon  a 
few. 

"In  reply  to  the  question,  what  should  be  the  further  conduct 
of  Synod  toward  those  of  its  members  who  accused  the  Synod  of 
false  doctrine,  the  following  answer  was  given :  As  long  as  they 
do  not  sincerely  repent  of  having  caused"  (whereby?)  "others  to 
call  us  Calvinists,  even  though  they  themselves  may  not  have 
called  us  so,  there  can  be  no  thought  of  remaining  together  with 
them,  not  even  if  they  should  retract  the  accusation  that  we  teach 
false  doctrine.  Such  repentance  is  indispensable.  It  is  simply 
the  duty  of  the  District  Synods,  i.  e.  of  their  Presidents,  to  take 
the  matter  in  hand  and  to  deal  further  with  our  opponents.  It  is 
unnecessary  for  us  to  adopt  any  special  rules  in  regard  to  this. 
We  already  have  a  rule  for  such  cases,  and  it  has  always  proved 


162  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predesthiation. 

sufficient.  It  is  this,  that  whoever  contradicts  a  doctrine  we  teach 
in  conformity  with  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession,  and  de- 
clares it  to  be  false,  must  be  taken  into  discipline.  If  the  person 
concerned  will  not  heed  private  admonition,  if  he  continues  in  his 
error  in  spite  of  it,  then  further  discipline  must  be  resorted  to  by 
the  president  of  the  District,  and  he  must  proceed  step  by  step' 
until  the  evidently  obstinate  heretic  is  excluded  from  synodical 
fellowship.  Indeed,  it  is  to  be  expected  of  all  those  who  consider 
our  doctrine  false  and  Calvinistic,  or  at  least  having  the  germs 
of  Calvinism,  that  they  will  not  wait  for  this,  but  will  prefer  them- 
selves to  sever  their  connection  with  a  synod  found,  according- 
to  their  conviction,  in  such  great  error.  Should  this  fail  to  occur, 
it  is  our  opinion  that  we  are  able  to  wait  quietly  until  that  course 
is  taken  with  them  which  God's  Word  prescribes  for  all  who  do 
not  abide  in  the  saving  doctrine,  and  at  the  same  time  we  would 
have  to  reproach  them  as  people  who  do  not  seem  to  be  really  in 
earnest  about  their  doctrine,  as  people  who  by  their  own  action 
declare  that  they  have  disturbed  the  Church  of  God  for  nought." 
(P.  42.)  This  certainly  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired  as  far  as 
clearness  is  concerned,  and  shows  the  desire  that  w'as  felt  to  be  rid 
of  these  men  and  their  inconvenient  admonition  and  warning. 
The  same  spirit  breathes  in  the  following  resolutions:  "Resolved, 
that  the  delegates  chosen  by  the  (different)  Districts  of  our  Synod 
for  the  Synodical  Conference  herewith  receive  the  following  in- 
structions: 1)  'You  are  to  sit  in  session  with  no  person  who  has 
publicly  accused  us"  (whom?  Synod  had  not  at  all  declared  itself 
up  to  this  time)  "of  Calvinism.'  '2)  You  are  to  acknowledge  no 
synod  as  a  member  of  the  Synodical  Conference,  which,  has  ac- 
cused us  of  Calvinism.'  "  (P.  45  sq.)  In  the  past  the  Buffalo 
Synod  had  been  reproached,  and  this  according  to  our  conviction 
with  justice,  for  refusing  to  treat  with  Missouri  in  regard  to  doc- 
trinal differences  until  Missouri  had  canceled  the  practical  out- 
come of  her  position  in  regard  to  these  differences,  had  recalled 
her  "schismatic  preachers",  that  is  had  taken  back  the  very  thing, 
the  correctness  of  which  she  was  still  convinced  of,  and  the  incor- 
rectness of  which  was  still  to  be  demonstrated  to  her  by  doctrinal 
discussion. 

Now  the  very  thing  Buffalo  had  demanded  of  Missouri  is 
demanded  by  Missouri  herself  of  the  opponents  of  her  new  doc- 
trine of  predestination  in  the  Synodical  Conference,  namely,  re- 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Syyiod.     163 

traction  of  what  these  opponents  had  done,  that  is,  said  and  asser- 
ted in  consequence  of  their  convictions  with  regard  to  the  doctrinal 
diflference,  retraction  before  these  differences  had  been  properly 
discussed  by  the  two  sides.  Furthermore,  note  the  usurpation 
of  power  Missouri  here  arrogates  to  herself  as  a  matter  of  course 
in  regard  to  the  Synodical  Conference;  Missouri  decides  who  is 
to  be  a  member  of  the  Synodical  Conference.  It  is  not  the  right 
and  duty  of  the  Synodical  Conference  as  such  to  decide  which  of 
the  two  contending  parties  is  to  be  acknowledged  as  an  orthodox 
member  of  this  body;  no,  Missouri  herself,  one  of  these  parties, 
makes  the  decision  beforehand.  Missouri  in  its  excitement  fails 
to  find  it  necessary,  even  for  appearance'  sake,  to  act  as  simply  a 
co-equal  member  of  the  Synodical  Conference,  and  hence  subor- 
dinate to  this  body,  and  not  its  lord  and  master. 

Before  taking  leave  of  this  Synodical  Report  we  must  add 
that  it  contains — and  this  before  the  vote  in  regard  to  the  position 
of  the  isynod  was  taken — the  following  declaration  concerning 
the  old  dogmaticians :  "It  is  indeed  true  that  we  have  tolerated" 
(no  more?  see  above  p.  53  sqq.)  "in  our  midst  also  the  mode  of 
expression  used  by  later  teachers  in  the  Church"  (Hunnius  lived 
1550-1G03,  Hutter  1563-1616,  Leyser  1552-1610,  Nicolai  1556- 
1608 ;  see  above  p.  25  sqq.).  "Because  we  knew  that  their  doctrine 
of  predestination  was  not  false,  we  never  declared  them  to  be  false 
teachers  on  account  of  their  mode  of  expression.  But  we  have 
always  thought  that  it  were  better  to  drop  this  mode  of  expression, 
as  used  by  later  dogmaticians,  the  so-called  second  'Lehrtropus', 
and  now,  compelled  by  painful  experiences,  we  have  indeed 
dropped  it  as  a  rule"  ("herrschender  Weise"— what  does  this  mean? 
dare  it  still  be  used  here  and  there,  by  way  of  exception?).  "As 
many  nowadays"  (who?)  "are  guilty  of  a  shameful  abuse  with  re- 
gard to  this  mode  of  expression,  we  do  not  wish  to  appear  as  peo- 
ple who  aid  this  abuse  by  retaining  the  mode  of  expression.  If 
our  opponents  had  told  us  that  they  could  not  bring  themselves 
to  speak  differently  of  predestination  than  for  instance  J.  Gerhard 
does,  and  if  they  had  made  the  same  explanation  he  makes"  (and 
did  they  not  do  this?),  "so  that  we  could  have  seen  that  only  the 
mode  of  expression  was  concerned,  and  that  in  the  doctrine  itself 
we  were  all  agreed,  then  most  likely  there  would  have  been  peace 
between  us  and  our  opponents"  (p.  37  sq.).  Compare  with  this 
what  "Lehre  und  Wehre"  declared  about  eleven  months  later  con- 


164  The  Prescyit   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

cerning  the  doctrine  of  predestination  of  our  dogmaticians  (above, 
p.  149  sq.). 

In  conclusion  we  direct  attention  to  two  natural  products  of 
the  modern  Missourian  doctrine  of  election.  The  first  of  these 
is  the  assertion,  repeated  constantly  with  fanatical  zeal  as  the  very 
quintessence  of  Biblical  Lutheran  orthodoxy,  viz.,  that  it  is  syner- 
gism to  teach  that  man's  conversion  and  salvation  depends  also 
upon  his  conduct  toward  the  means  of  grace  and  toward  the  gra- 
cious operations  of  th«  Holy  Spirit.  Yea,  it  is  declared  to  be 
synergism,  to  be  even  "heathenish",  and  so  abominable  that  "all 
who  wish  to  be  Lutherans  should  rise  as  one  man  against  it,"  when 
we  teach :  "That  the  Holy  Spirit  alone  works  conversion  and  faith 
in  us,  and  also  preserves  it;  that  He  does  both  through  the  means 
of  grace,  yet  not  in  an  irresistible  manner,  so  that  every  man  whom 
He  desires  to  convert  and  save  must  necessarily  be  converted,  but 
in  such  a  manner  that  man  at  every  stage  of  His  work  may  so  con- 
duct himself  as  to  frustrate  the  Holy  Spirit's  works ;  that,  conse- 
quently, if  man  would  be  saved,  he  must  desist  from  this  conduct, 
and  in  so  far  also  must  conduct  himself  differently,  although  this 
right  conduct  is  made  possible  for  him  not  by  his  own  natural 
powers,  but  only  by  the  divine  operation"  (yet  not  by  compulsion, 
not  irresistibly — see  "Zeitblatter"  1888,  p.  129  sqq.;  "Lehre  und 
Wehre"  1891,  p.  21  sqq.  and  elsewhere;  compare  "Zeitblatter" 
1891,  p.  130  sqq.).  In  regard  to  this  modern  Missovirian,  Calvin- 
istic  assertion  compare  the  utterances  of  Leyser  and  of  Nicolai 
(above,  p.  26  sq.)  and  of  old  Missouri  herself  (above,  p.  53;  59  sqq.; 
(>2).  —  The  second  natural  result  of  the  modern  Missourian  doc- 
trine of  election  is  the  renewal  of  the  assertion,  made  by  Dr.  Wal- 
ther  at  the  General  Pastoral  Conference  in  Chicago  and  then  re- 
tracted at  least  apparently,  namely,  that  justification  precedes  faith, 
and  does  not  depend,  and  is  not  conditioned  upon  it  (above,  p.  128 
sqq.:  "Lehre  und  Wehre"  1888,  p.  1(51  sqq.;  compare  "Zeitblat- 
ter" 1889,  p.  129  sqq.  321  sqq.).  Accordingly,  this  is  modern  Mis- 
sourian doctrine:  "Christ's  righteousness  has  been  imputed  to  all" 
(through  Christ's  resurrection).  All  men  are  now  accounted  as 
just  and  obedient  before  God.  Justification  has  been  imparted 
to  all,  namelv,  the  justification  of  life,  by  virtue  of  which  life  instead 
of  death,  eternal  life  is  adjudged  to  them."  Every  single  person 
is  now  "actually  justified,  and  not  merely  as  far  as  possibility 
o-oes".  "no  matter  whether  he  believes,  or  does  not  believe."    "The 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     165 

most  dangerous  consequences"  are  said  to  result  from  the  teaching 
hitherto  customary  in  the  Lutheran  Church :  "When  a  sinner  is 
converted  and  believes  in  Jesus  Christ,  then  God  forgives  him  his 
sin"  and  justifies  him!  In  regard  to  this  we  simply  point  to  the 
old  Missourian  Catechism,  which  teaches  in  full  liarmony  with  the 
Bible,  the  Confession,  and  the  dogmaticians,  question  30fi:  "Jus- 
tification is  that  act  of  God,  by  which  He.  of  pure  grace  and  mercy, 
for  the  sake  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  forgives  the  sins  of  a  poor 
sinner,  who  truly  believes  in  Christ,  and  accepts  him  unto  eternal 
life." 


Ill 

THE   DOCTRINE   OF   PREDESTINATION   IN   THE 
MISSOURI   SYNOD. 


G.    COMPARATIVE  SUMMARY. 

Before  closing  the  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion of  the  Missouri  Synod,  it  appears  to  be  in  place  to  summarize 
briefly  its  chief  peculiarities,  and  to  compare  them  with  the  old 
Missourian,  the  genuinely  Lutheran,  and  the  Reformed  doctrine. 
This  we  here  undertake.  We  choose  the  form  of  questions  and 
answers. 

1.       WHAT    IS    PREDESTINATION? 

a)  Old  Missouri  answers:  "Predestination  is  that  act  of 
God  in  which,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  thus  from  all 
eternity,  He  determined,  according  to  the  purpose  of  His  will, 
to  save  eternally,  for  Christ's  sake  and  for  the  praise  of  His 
glorious  grace,  all  those  whose  persevering  faith  in  Christ  He 
has  foreseen.  Eph.  1,  4-6;  2  Tim.  1,  9."  (Above  p.  58;  com- 
pare p.  64  and  82  sq.  and  129.) 

b)  Modern  Missouri:  "Election  is  the  unalterable  and 
eternal  decree  of  God,  by  which,  from  the  entire  human  race 
(fallen  by  its  own  fault  from  its  original  state  of  innocence  into  sin 
and  destruction),  according  to  the  free  purpose  of  His  will,  out 
of  pure  grace  and  mercy.  He  ordained  unto  salvation  a  certain 
number  of  individual  persons,  neither  better  nor  worthier  than 
others,  lying  together  with  them  in  the  same  universal  destruc- 
tion." ("Lehre  und  Wehre"  XIX,  p.  140;  compare  above 
p.  116.)* 


*  Note  also  the  change  made  by  the  Wisconsin  allies  of  Missouri  in 
the  old  Dresden  Catechism,  the  so-called  '■'■  Kreuzcatechismtcs"\  Here  the 
answer  to  question  304 :  "Who  are  the  elect  ?"  reads :  "The  elect  are  they 
of  ivhoni  God  has  foreseen  in  eternity  that  they  would  persevere  in  their 
faith  in  His  Son  fesus  Christ  until  their  end.  Eph.  1,  3.  4 ;  2  Thess.  2,  13. 
14.  This  explanation,  harmonizing  completely  with  the  doctrine  of  old 
Missouri  and  of  the  old  Ivutheran  dogmaticians,  the  Wisconsinites  have 

(166) 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Syniod.     167 

c)  The  Calvinists,  that  is  the  strictest  among  them,  who  hold 
fast  to  the  resolution  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  answer  precisely  as 
does  modern  Missouri  (above  p.  29)!  Indeed,  the  answer  of  the 
latter  seems  to  be  a  translation  of  the  passage  concerned  from 
the  Confession  of  Dort! 

d)  The  old  Lutheran  dogmaticians:  "Election  or  predes- 
tination in  the  wider  sense  is  that  eternal  decree  of  God,  by  which 
in  His  infinite  mercy  He  determined  to  send  a  Alediator  for  all 
men,  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would  fall  into  sin,  and  to 
ofifer  Him  by  universal  preaching  for  all  to  accept;  also  to  impart 
to  all,  who  would  not  resist,  faith  through  the  Word  and  Sac- 
raments; to  sanctify  all  believers,  and  to  renew  those  continuing 
the  use  of  the  means  of  grace,  and  to  preserve  faith  in  them  unto 
the  end  of  their  lives,  and  finally,  to  save  those  who  believe  to  the 
end,  for  the  glory  of  His  goodness.  Predestination  or  election  in 
the  stricter  sense  is  that  eternal  decree  of  God,  by  which  God  in 
His  infinite  mercy  determined  to  give  eternal  salvation  to  all 
those,  and  only  to  those,  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would 
believe  in  Christ  till  the  end,  and  this  for  the  sake  of  Christ's 
merits,  which  must  be  aprehended  by  persevering  faith,  and  is 
foreseen  as  such, — for  the  sake  of  their  salvation  and  of  His 
glory."  (Baier,  Compendium  Theol.  pos. ;  compare  above,  p. 
45  sq.,  48  sqq.,  25  sqq. 

2.       WHAT    HAS    GOD    REGARDED    IN    ELECTION? 

a)  Old  Missouri  answers:  Also  "the  conduct  of  man," 
especially  his  "persevering  faith,"  is  the  indispensable  "condi- 
tion" ;  it  is  false  Reformed  doctrine  that  in  the  eternal  counsel  of 
God  respecting  man  "man's  conduct  was  not  at  all  regarded,  not 
even  faith."  From  the  purpose  of  God  "to  save  only  those  who 
believe  perseveringly"  their  "election  is  to  be  deduced,"  and  "this 
conjunction  of  the  two  is  conceivable  only  as  mediated  by  fore- 
sight." "A  blind  predestination,  not  enlightened  by  knowledge, 
is  unknovv'n  to  the  Confession"  (above,  p.  54;   56).     "The  subse- 


altered  in  their  Catechism,  "prepared  on  the  basis  of  the  Dresden  Kreuz- 
■catechisinits",  to  read  as  follows:  "The  elect  are  they  who  are  called  by  the 
Gospel,  enlightened  with  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  sanctified  in  the 
true  faith,  and  kept  with  Christ  Jesus  until  thetr  end,  and  thus  saved 
eternally,  according  to  the  gracious  purpose  and  pleasure  of  God  in  Christ 
Jesus"  (question  215) — an  explanation  which  the  strictest  Calvinist  may 
adopt  without  she  slightest  reservation. 


168  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestinatio7i. 

quent  will"  of  God,  from  which  personal  election  proceeds,  "condi- 
tions" the  antecedent,  universal  \\'\\\  of  God's  grace  "by  that  of 
the  creature,"  although  "not  at  all  in  any  synergistic  sense"  (above, 
p.  57). 

b)  Modern  Missouri:  "This  will  of  God,  how^ever,"  accord- 
ing to  which  we  are  chosen,  "is  also  itself  not  determined  by  any 
other  will."  God  has  chosen  some  merely  "because  He  so 
willed";  "according  to  His  mere  pleasure"  He  gives  us  eternal 
life.  (Above,  p.  72.)  "Therefore,  because  it  is  already  certain 
through  election  that  a  person  is  to  reach  heaven,  God  foreknows 
it."  As  a  judge's  foreknowledge  of  the  execution  of  a  criminal 
is  "conditioned"  by  his  foreordaining  the  act,  so  also  God's  fore- 
knowledge in  election  is  "dependent"  upon  His  foreordination, 
and  not  vice  versa  (p.  77).  "All  regard  to  man's  conduct"  must 
be  excluded,  also  all  regard  to  faith  (above,  p.  119).  Also  those 
who  are  not  chosen  are  not  chosen  not  for  the  reason  that  God 
foresaw  their  wilful,  contumacious  resistance  (p.  130;  147.  Elec- 
tion is  conditional  only  in  so  far  as  God  has  regarded  Christ's 
merit,  obtained  for  all,  and  faith,  in  so  far  as  He  has  determined 
to  give  it  to  the  elect."     (P.  140  scj.) 

c)  The  Calvinists  answer  in  the  same  way  as  modern  Mis- 
sourians,  that  God  has  had  no  regard  whatever  to  man's  con- 
duct and  faith  (above  p.  80);  they  differ  from  Missouri,  and  to 
their  own  advantage,  only  in  this  that  in  consistency  and  honesty 
they  do  not  speak  of  a  conditional  election.  We  read,  for  in- 
stance in  Article  X  of  the  2nd  Helvetian  Confession:  "God  has 
foreordained  or  chosen  from  eternity,  freely  and  of  pure  mercy, 
without  any  regard  whatever  to  man,  the  saints  whom  He  desires 
to  save  in  Christ." 

d)  The  Lutheran  Church:  "The  reason"  that  many  are 
called,  but  only  "few  are  chosen"  is  this,  that  the  non-elect  "either 
do  not  at  all  hear  God's  Word,  but  wilfully  despise  it,  close  their 
ears  and  harden  their  hearts,  and  in  this  manner  foreclose  the 
ordinary  way  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that  He  cannot  effect  His 
work  in  them"  (Formula  of  Concord  XI,  Epit.  12,  Jacobs'  Transl. 
526);  in  other  words,  they  do  not  conduct  themselves  aright  to- 
ward the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  means  of  grace,  and  do  not  permit 
faith  to  be  wrought  in  their  hearts.  For  "God  has  ordained  in 
His  counsel  that  all  those  who,  by  true  faith,  receive  Christ  He 
will  justify  and  save"  (Jacobs'  Transl.,  p.  65G).  An  essential  part 
belonging  to  predestination  is  the  decree  of  God  "that  the  good 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     169' 

work  which  He  has  begun  in  them,"  the  beHevers,  "He  would 
strengthen,  increase,  and  support  to  the  end,  if  they  observe 
God's  Word,  pray  diUgently,  abide  in  God's  goodness,  and  faith- 
fully use  the  gifts  received"  (p.  653).  The  Lutheran  theologians 
consider  it  "Calvinistic,  unchristian,  and  heathenish"  to  teach  that 
God  has  not  regarded,  "cared  nought  about  it,  and  determined 
nothing  regarding  it,"  "how  the  children  of  men  would  conduct 
themselves  toward  the  holy  order  which  He  Himself  established 
for  salvation,"  whether  they  would  "use"  it,  or  "despise"  it. 
"From  this  foreseen  difiference  between  men  reprobation  as  well 
as  election  follows."  "Not  all,  but  only  some  are  reprobated,  be- 
cause of  the  difYerence  of  faith  and  its  opposite,  unbelief."  (Above, 
p.  20  sqq.) 

3.       WHAT    IS   THE    RELATION    ESPECIALLY    OF    FAITH 
TO    ELECTION? 

a)  Old  Missouri  answers:  Faith,  "is  an  intregai  part  of  the 
order  in  which  God  offers  the  blessing  of  election  to  men."  As 
election,  i.  e.  the  choice  of  persons,  election,  in  the 
narrower  sense,  is  neither  the  foundation  nor  the  means,  nor 
the  condition  of  salvation  (for  these  are  Christ.  His  Gospel,  and 
the  faith  given  thereby),"  so  also  it  is  "not  the  cause  of  our  faith, 
in  so  far  as  faith  would  be  the  effect  of  election;  for  the  Word 
works  faith"  (above  p.  55).  "God  has  also  not  elected  us  that  we 
should  believe,  but  because  He  foresaw  that  we  would  believe" 
(p.  61).  It  is  "false  doctrine  of  the  Calvinists"  to  say:  "Election 
is  not  out  of  the  foresight  of  faith,  but  is  unto  faith"  (p.  65). 

b)  Modern  Missouri:  Even  to  consider  faith  only  "the 
middle  link,"  "so  that  the  motive  in  election  would  not  be  faith  in 
itself,  but  Christ  and  His  merit  apprehended  by  faith,"  is  already 
"Pelagianism,"  because  faith  is  then  "not  the  middle  link,  but  a 
condition,"  and  "a  certain  causality  will  still  be  ascribed  to  faith" 
(above,  p.  66).  "Election"  (in  the  Missourian  sense,  the  choice 
of  persons)  "is  the  cause  of  all  that  takes  place  for  the  salvation  of 
the  elect;  it  is  the  cause  that  any  one  comes  to  repentance;  it 
is  also  the  cause  when  one  who  has  fallen  away  returns  unto  re- 
pentance" (p.  67).  This  election  is,  "as  it  were,"  the  "very  foun- 
tion  of  the  great,  unsearchable  mystery  of  our  salvation"  (p.  72). 
"Faith  cannot  bear  the  same  relation  to  election  as  it  bears  to  jus- 
tification. Election  is  not,  like  Christ's  righteousness,  something 
obtained  and  existing  for  all  men,  something  therefore  for  all  men 


170  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

to  embrace  by  faith,  appropriate,  and  become  partakers  of." 
(Above,  p.  140  sq. ;  compare  p.  153).  "God  has  predestinated  us 
unto  faith,"  not  in  foresight  of  faith  (p.  119  sqq.). 

c)  The  Calvinists:  "Election"  (as  the  choice  of  particular 
persons)  "did  not  take  place  in  view  of  faith,  but  unto  faith.  Con- 
sequently, election  is  the  source  of  every  blessing  belonging  to 
salvation,  whence  faith,  sanctification,  etc.,  proceed"  (above,  p.  30). 

d)  The  Lutheran  Church:  To  election  belongs  the  follow- 
ing, as  the  fourth  decree,  "that  all  those  who,  in  true  repentance, 
receive  Christ  by  a  true  faith  He  would  justify  and  receive  into 
grace,  adoption,  and  inheritance  of  eternal  life"  (Jacobs'  T.,  p. 
652,  etc.).  "All  men  should  seek  in  Christ  the  eternal  election 
of  the  Father,"  and  this  by  faith  (661).  Hutter  says,  "it  is  a  hor- 
rible blindness  or  giddiness  of  mind  that  will  not  recognize  the 
same  condition  and  relation  of  faith  in  the  article  of  faith"  as  in 
the  article  of  justification  (above,  p.  27).  And  "herein  all  pure 
theologians  on  our  side  are  united"  and  "agree  with  one  ac- 
cord and  teach  unanimously  against  the  Calvinists,"  says  Musseus 
(above,  p.  112). 

4.       IN    WHAT    SENSE    DOES   THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD    SPEAK 

OF   ELECTION? 

a)  Old  Missouri  evidently  was  never  entirely  clear  on  this 
point.  And  this  lack  of  clearness  seems  to  explain  to  us  also  Dr. 
Walther's  confusion  and  contradiction  in  so  many  places,  and 
this  not  only  when  in  the  heat  of  controversy  he  resorted  to  very 
questionable  weapons  and  subterfuges. 

b)  Modern  Missouri  asserts,  as  all  know,  that  the  Formula 
of  Concord  speaks  of  election  in  the  narrower  sense,  that  is 
exclusively  of  the  choice  of  persons;  and  it  is  compelled  to  do 
this,  if  it  would  give  its  doctrine  even  in  part  the  appearance  of 
agreeing  with  the  Confession  (above,  p.  95  sq. ;  115  sqq.). 

c)  What  the  Lutheran  Church  thinks  on  this  point,  namely 
that  the  Formula  of  Concord  speaks  of  election  in  the  wider 
sense,  is  shown,  in  the  first  place,  by  the  clear  words  of  the  Confes- 
sion itself  (especially  p.  651,  §  9;  652,  §  13-24;  compare  above  p. 
39  sqq.),  and  secondly  by  the  clear  and  repeated  utterances  of 
our  old  dogmaticians  (above,  p.  45  sqq.,  48  sqq.). 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missotiri  Synod.     171 
5.     IS  man's   conversion   and   salvation  in  every   sense 

INDEPENDENT  OF  HIS  CONDUCT? 

a)  Old  Missouri  answers:  No  (above,  p.  55  sqq.).  Dr. 
Walther,  "Postille,"  p.  91:  "He  who  opposes  not  merely  his  nat- 
ural resistance  to  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  also  an  ob- 
stinate and  obdurate  resistance,  him  God  Himself  cannot  then 
help;  for  God  will  force  no  one  to  conversion,  a  forced  conver- 
sion is  no  conversion."  "For,  although  all  men  are  by  nature 
equally  sinful,  and  although  God  must  first  remove  this  resist- 
ance, yet  on  this  account  no  one  is  lost ;  for  when  God  comes  with 
His  Word  He  also  comes  with  His  Holy  Spirit  to  remove  the 
natural  resistance.  But  he  who  then  not  merely,  etc."  Page  92 : 
"God  could  not  choose  many  merely  for  this  reason,  because  He 
foresaw,  that  many  would  obstinately  resist  His  Holy  Spirit,  re- 
ject the  means  of  grace  and  make  them  fruitless  in  their  work, 
would  not  believe,  or  would  not  remain  in  faith,  but  would  be- 
come obdurate  and  hardened."  Synodical  Conference:  "Now, 
however,  God  looks  about  in  the  world  to  see  how  people  will 
conduct  themselves  toward  this  redemption  of  Christ,  etc."  (Re- 
port of  1872,  p.  36;  compare  "Zeitblatter,"  1889,  p.  345.) 

b)  Modern  Missouri:     Yea  (above,  p.  79;  93  sqq.;  163  sq.). 

c)  The  Calvinists  have  essentially  the  same  position  on  this 
point  as  the  modern  Missourians  (above,  p.  31:  "entirely  de- 
pendent upon  predestination"  is  man's  conversion  and  salvation, 
and  not  in  any  or  the  least  sense  upon  his  resistance  or  non- 
resistance. 

d)  The  Lutheran  Church  teaches:  If  man  is  to  be  converted 
and  saved,  he  must  "conduct"  himself  aright  toward  the  means  of 
grace  and  the  Holy  Spirit  operating  through  them,  and  this  he 
is  able  to  do  through  the  grace  and  strength  offered  in  the  means 
of  grace  (Jacobs'  T.,  p.  561  sqq.).  Otherwise  the  Holy  Spirit  can- 
not convert  and  save  him  (p.  526 ;  compare  652,  §  17 ;  653,  §  21 ; 
656,  etc.  §  40-42;  above,  p.  41;  43;  24  sq.).  To  assume  the  contrary 
is  "Calvinistic,  unchristian,  and  heathenish"  (above,  p.  26). 
"Reprobation  as  well  as  election  proceeds"  from  the  foreseen 
different  conduct  of  men  in  this  regard  (p.  26  sq.).  "When"  man 
"is  in  the  workshop  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  offers  no  wicked  re- 
sistance to  the  means  of  grace,"  God  brings  him  to  conversion. 
The  "decision"  of  his  will  in  conversion  "is  not  a  thing  of  neces- 
sity or  of  irresistible  compulsion,   although,  presupposing  the 


172  The  Present   Controversy  07i  Predestination. 

divine  order"  (the  following  of  this  order,  right  conduct  toward 
it),  "it  is  infallible"  (p.  83). 

6.      MAY   WE    SPEAK   OF   MAN'S   DECISION   OR  "  SELF-DETERMINA- 
TION"    IN    CONVERSION? 

a)  Old  Missouri  answers:    Yea  (above,  p.  57-61). 

b)  Modern  Missouri  answers:  No  (above,  p.  68).  Grace 
works  irresistibly;  wherever  God  wills,  His  grace  forces  its  way, 
removes  all  resistance,  even  the  most  wilful:  "Experience  con- 
firms the  fact  that  He  does  not  remove  the  resistance  of  millions 
of  men  against  His  Word,  whereas  He  could  remove  it  from  them 
as  easily  as  from  the  elect"  ("Lehre  und  Wehre"  1871,  p.  172). 
"It  must  be  an  easy  thing  for  God  to  remove  a  man's  resistance, 
so  that  this  cannot  hinder  Him,  when  He  determines  to  save  a 
man  .  .  .  Hence  when  God  turns  to  a  man  wath  His  grace,  all 
resistance  gives  way,  as  the  snow  melts  before  the  rays  of  the  vivi- 
fying sun  in  spring  time.  .  .  .  God  also  often  takes  the  most  wilful 
resistance  from  the  elect."  "Theol.  Monatshefte"  1873,  p.  117; 
compare  above,  p.  141  sq.;  147.) 

c)  The  Calvinists,  according  to  the  above,  agree  very 
naturally  with  modern  Missouri;  nothing  but  the  free  will  of 
God,  decides  conversion  (above,  p.  32).  Grace  works  irresistibly 
(p.  34). 

d)  The  Lutheran  Church  is  determined  to  know  nothing  of 
an  irresistible  grace,  as  is  shown  already  by  the  passages  quoted 
under  question  5;  and  therefore  she  cannot  object  to  speaking  of 
man's  decision  or  "self-determination"  after  the  manner  of  old 
Missouri.  Compare  furthermore  the  Formula  of  Concord 
(Jacobs'  T.,  p.  5G4),  where  we  read  among  other  things  as  follows: 
"And  although  God  does  not  force  man  to  become  godly  (for 
those  who  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost  and  persistently  oppose 
the  known  truth,  as  Stephen  says  of  the  hardened  Jews,  Acts  7, 
51,  will  not  be  converted)  etc."  And  what  Baier  says  (Comp. 
Theol.  pos.  HI.,  1,  7),  that  God,  by  His  saving  grace  does  "not 
irresistibly  determine  or  decide  (irresistibiliter  determinet)  us  to 
use  the  Mediator  aright,  but  that  He  wants  to  do  only  what  is  de- 
manded on  His,  God's,  part  to  make  it  impossible  for  no  man  to 
partake  of  the  Mediator" — this  is  universally  the  doctrine  of  our 
dogmaticians  and  other  thelogians.  DieckhofY,  in  his  noteworthy  . 
anti-Missourian  work,  "Zur  Lehre  von  der  Bekehrung  und  von 
der  Prsedestination,"  (On  the  Doctrine  of  Conversion  and  Pre- 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     173 

destination)  gives  the  following  entirely  correct  summary 
of  the  discussion  of  this  subject  by  Calovius,  a  strict  Lutheran, 
(p.  105):  "Man  does  determine  himself  in  conversion,  from  the 
indifference  of  his  free-will,  to  will  his  own  conversion  by  means 
of  the  powers  received.  This  willing  itself  is  wrought  by  grace. 
When  man  in  conversion  decides  for  conversion,  he  does  this 
determined  thereto  by  grace,  but  not  determined  thereto  'prgecise,' 
so  that  he  must,  so  that  he  could  not  resist  the  operation  of 
grace,  nor  follow  the  contrary  will  of  the  old  man."  Noth- 
ing more  than  this  was  intended  by  Dr.  G.  Fritschel,  whom  the 
Missourians  vilified  so  much,  in  his  use  of  the  term  "free  self- 
determination"  of  man  (above,  p.   (JS). 

7.       WHAT   IS   THE    DIFFERENCE   BETWEEN   THE   LUTHERAN   AND 
THE    REFORMED    DOCTRINE    OF    ELECTION? 

a)  Old  Missouri:  It  is  distinctively  Reformed,  and  therefore 
un-Lutheran,  to  conceive  of  predestination  as  a  "decree  in  which 
man's  conduct  was  in  no  way  regarded,  not  even  faith"  (above, 
p.  51).  "This  is  the  point  of  difference,  dividing  the  pure  doctrine 
from  the  Reformed  particularistic  doctrine,  namely,  that  the 
power  of  the  divine  Word  unto  conversion  and  regeneration  has 
not  predestination  as  its  presupposition"  (p.  55).  "The  theolo- 
gians of  Dort  place  the  chief  predestinating  cause  of  the  damnation 
as  well  as  of  the  salvation  of  those  born  now  in  a  sinful  condition, 
absolutely  in  God  and  in  His  beneplacitum  absolutum"  (abso- 
lute pleasure)  "without  basing  election  with  the  Lutherans  upon 
the  foresight  of  persevering  faith,  i.  e.  conditioning  the  former  in 
God  upon  the  latter"  (p.  58).  "That  God  has  elected  a  few 
according  to  His  mere  will  and  pleasure  without  regarding  faith 
grounded  in  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  the  constant  doctrine  of 
all  the  Reformed,  as  many  of  them  as  bind  themselves  to  their 
symbolical  books  and  consent  to  the  Synod  of  Dort;  and  al- 
though a  few  admit  that  election  did  not  take  place  without  all 
regard  to  the  merit  of  Christ  and  to  faith,  yet  they  do  not  mean 
that  God  from  eternity  elected  those  of  whom  He  foresaw  that 
they  would  believe  and  accept  Christ's  merit,  but  that  He  elected 
some  few  according  to  His  mere  absolute  w-ill  that  they  might 
believe  in  time.  Hence  faith  is  not  considered  among  them  as  a 
cause  or  condition  of  election,  but  as  a  necessary  effect  of  elec- 
tion .  .  .  God  did  not  elect  us  because  we  believe,  but  that  we 


174  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestmation. 

may  believe  .  .  .  Because  faith  is  God's  gift  He  did  not  foresee 
it  and  direct  His  election  to  it."     (P.  61  sq.) 

b)  Modern  Missouri:  "The  very  thing  that  makes  the 
teaching  of  the  Calvinists  so  horrible"  is  now  by  Missouri  said  to 
be  this  that  they  speak  only  of  the  "mystery"  of  personal  election, 
and  not  of  the  way  in  which  God  saves  the  elect,  or  carries  out  the 
election  made  without  regard  to  man's  conduct  and  faith ;  still  in 
regard  to  the  (mysterious,  unknown)  rule  of  election,  and  also  in 
regard  to  the  way  in  which  it  is  carried  out  they  agree  in  all  essen- 
tials with  modern  Missouri  (above,  p.  95).  At  another  time  the 
difiference  between  Lutherans  (Missourians)  and  Calvinists  is 
said  to  be:  The  Lutherans  "teach  only  one  predestination,  that 
unto  salvation,  none  unto  damnation;  they  teach  universal 
grace  and  an  earnest  will  of  God  to  save  all  men;  they  teach  that 
all  men  are  redeemed  through  Christ;  they  teach  that  God  has 
chosen  to  elect  only  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  bringing  them  to  faith  and  salvation  in  the  same  way  in 
which  He  desires  to  save  all  men;  they  teach  that  God  earnestly 
and  efficaciously  calls  also  those  who  are  not  saved,  earnestly  and 
efficaciously  offers  them  His  Holy  Spirit,  grace,  faith,  persever- 
ence,  and  salvation,  and  that  they  are  lost  only  because  they 
despise  all  this  and  obstinately  resist  the  Holy  Spirit  till  the  end, 
etc.  Where  then  do  you  find  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  absolute 
election?  .  .  How  can  election  be  absolute,  i.  e.  unconditional, 
when  it  is  conditioned  by  Christ's  merit  and  by  the  faith  God  has 
determined  to  give  the  elect?"  ("Lehre  und  Wehre",  1880,  p. 
295,  etc.;  compare  above,  p.  140  sq.)  Note  that  there  is  no  men- 
tion made  here  at  all  of  the  difiference  stated  by  old  Missouri,  of 
the  difference  which  must  exist,  if  the  Lutheran  doctrine  is  to 
differ  really  and  essentially  from  the  Calvinistic,  for  the  certain 
consolation  of  all  poor  sinners.  In  this  "Lutheran"  doctrine, 
which  no  longer  warrants  the  old  Lutheran  conclusions  of  elec- 
tion in  view  of  faith,  and  of  conversion  and  salvation  not  without 
all  regard  to  man's  conduct,  most  men,  all  who  are  not  elected  in 
the  Misourian  and  Calvinistic  sense,  are  in  reality,  as  far  as  all  that 
is  essential  and  decisive  is  concerned,  left  in  the  same  miserable 
position  as  in  the  genuinely  Calvinistic  doctrine:  without  any 
fault  of  their  own  that  grace  is  denied  them,  without  which  all 
other  grace  saves  no  man. 

c)  Our  old  Lutheran  theologians  give  the  difference  pre- 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     17& 

cisely  as  did  old  Missouri;   the  latter  only  appropriated  their  ex- 
pressions and  thus  acknowledged  their  doctrine. 

d)  What  the  impartial  M.  Schneckenburger  states  as  the 
essential  difference  between  genuine  Lutheran  and  genuine 
Calvinistic  doctrine  in  regard  to  election,  we  have  set  forth  at 
length  above,  p.  30-36.  We  here  merely  refer  to  the  following- 
points.  For  the  Lutheran  "this  eternal  election"  (i.  e.  the  choice 
of  persons)  "is  not  the  principle  determining  the  entire  develop- 
ment of  the  individual  and  his  final  goal"  (as  this  is  the  case  with 
the  Reformedjj  "on  the  contrary,  all  the  stress  which  the  Re- 
formed view,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  idea  of  grace,  places  upon 
the  eternal,  pretemporal  act  of  election,  is  placed  by  the  Lutheran 
view  upon  the  fact  of  actual  universal  redemption  and  of  individual 
justification,  upon  the  ef^cacious  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  influ- 
encing man's  decision.  .  .  .  The  final  issue  is  made  to  depend  upon 
the  preceding  development,  in  which  the  individual  acts  as  a  true 
moral  agent,  and  in  which  grace  offers  true  means  of  grace  whose 
use  or  abuse  produces  a  decisive  result.  This  view,  however, 
appears  inconsistent  to  the  mind  of  the  Reformed,  and  at  the  same 
time  lacking  in  piety,  and  he  opposes  to  it  his  dogma  of  predestina- 
tion" (above,  p.  31).  "For  the  Lutheran  the  consilium  salutis" 
(the  counsel  of  salvation)  "is  in  general  that  in  which  his  interest 
concerning  the  eternal  decrees  of  God  concentrates;  while  the 
Reformed  conceives  of  this  concilum  salutis  only  as  connected 
with  a  predestination  of  individuals.  .  .  .  Yet  in  teaching  a  divine 
predestination  on  the  basis  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Lutherans  make 
this  dependent  on  faith,  that  is  on  the  divine  prescience  of  faith, 
and  God's  free  grace  does  not  consist  in  this  that  He  gives 
faith  and  with  this  a  share  in  Christ  and  in  eternal  life,  according 
to  His  pleasure"  (having  regard  to  nothing  in  or  about  man), 
"but  in  this  that  He  imparts  to  the  believer,  who  in  himself  is  a 
sinner  and  merits  condemnation,  for  the  sake  of  Christ  forgive- 
ness and  salvation.  Of  this  grace  man  becomes  certain  in  justifi- 
cation, and  the  thought  of  predestination  is  for  him  only  an  ele- 
ment in  his  assurance  of  salvation,  wherewith  he  comforts  himself 
in  the  battle  and  misery  of  the  world.  .  .  The  Reformed  has  the 
following  objections  to  make  against  the  Lutheran  dogma  re- 
ferred to:  If  faith  were  the  condition  of  a  predestination  depend- 
ing not  upon  itself  alone,  or  upon  the  divine  volition,  then  sal- 
vation, to  which  predestination  admits,  would  not  be  a  pure 
gift  of  grace.  .  .  .  Accordingly,  the  Reformed  doctrine  establishes 


176  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

a  predestination  of  God  unconditioned  by  His  foreknowledge, 
rather  conditioning  this  itself,  producing  its  results  with  absolute, 
irresistible  power  in  and  among  men."  (P.  83  sq.)  For  the 
Reformed  "the  element  of  justification,  as  an  objective  act  of 
God,  carried  into  effect  through  the  media  gratise"  (the  means  of 
grace),  "must  recede  behind  the  element  of  eternal  election,  in 
which  the  vocatio,  regeneratio,  and  justificatio  are  already  in- 
cluded as  nothing  more  than  stages  in  the  development  of  the 
individual  under  the  influence  of  grace."  Justification,  on  the 
contrary,  "is  looked  upon  by  the  Lutherans  exclusively  as  a 
transcendent  act,  immanent  in  God,  and  intransitive,  the  result  of 
which  does  nothing  but  enter  the  consciousness  of  the  subject 
concerned,  and  is  received  with  the  same  faith  which  for  the 
individual  forms  the  condition  for  bringing  the  divine  act  to  pass" 
(p.  8(;).     Compare  in  addition  above,  p.  72;  119;  128;  163. 

8.       HOW  MUST   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    DOGMATICIANS   OF   THE 
SEVENTEENTH    CENTURY    BE    REGARDED? 

a)  Old  Missouri  answers,  aside  from  its  confession  of  this 
very  doctrine,  as  contained  in  the  teaching  of  Old  Missouri  her- 
self, and  this  even  in  its  transition  to  modern  Missourianism,  as 
follows:  "Our  Synod  confesses  most  positively  that  the  theo- 
logians of  our  Church,  also  in  the  17th  centur)',  taught  the  correct 
doctrine  of  predestination,  and  defended  it  against  the  Calvinists" 
(above,  p.  ()7  sq. ;  compare  p.  113). 

b)  Modern  Missouri:  "It  is  beyond  all  doubt  that  the  dog- 
maticians  of  the  17th  century  in  some  way,  although  they  define 
it  very  differently,  make  election  depend  upon  faith.  .  .  .  And 
herein  they  have  erred  and  have  deviated  from  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Symbol.  Herein  we  do  not  agree  with  them."  (Above, 
p.  14!)  sq.). 

c)  The  judgment  of  our  old  dogmaticians  themselves  is 
found  in  their  statements  regarding  election  in  the  wider  and  in 
the  narrower  sense  (above,  p.  48  sqq. ;  compare  p.  2!>,  where 
election  in  view  of  faith  is  taught  as  being  indisputably  contained 
in  the  Formula  of  Concord).  Since  the  publication  of  the  Form- 
ula of  Concord,  for  some  300  years,  the  Lutheran  Church  has 
unanimously  held  that  the  doctrine  of  our  Confession  and  of  the 
following  teachers  of  our  Church  harmonized  perfectly  also  in  the 
article    of    predestination.     Modern    Missourians    are    the    first 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     177 

"Lutherans"  who  assert  the  contrary;  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  tliey 
will  also  be  the  last. 

9.       HOW    IS   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    MODERN    MISSOURI    TO 
BE    REGARDED? 

a)  Modern  Missourians,  of  course,  claim  that  it  alone  is 
genuinely  Lutheran;  whether  this  claim  is  made  with  a  good 
conscience,  we  leave  to  the  judgment  of  the  omniscient  God. 

b)  Every  impartial  man  who  has  followed  the  above  pre- 
sentation with  close  attention,  whoever  he  may  be,  must  admit 
that  in  all  essentials  the  modern  Missourian  doctrine  is  genuinely 
Calvinistic.  It  is  not  merely  that  single  phrases  are  accidentally 
the  same  as  those  of  Calvinism.  It  is  not  the  play  of  chance  that 
the  modern  Missourian  definition  of  predestination  is  exactly 
the  same  as  that  of  Calvinism.  The  entire  modern  Missourian 
view  is  Calvinistic,  as  the  old  Missourian  was  Lutheran. 
Calvinistic  is,  the  idea  of  the  position  and  of  the  all-decisive  im- 
portance of  personal  election  in  the  counsel  of  salvation;  the  idea 
of  the  relation  of  faith  to  election;  the  idea  of  the  independence 
of  election  as  far  as  the  foreknowledge  and  all  the  conduct  of  man 
is  concerned;  the  idea  of  the  irresistible  operation  of  the  grace 
flowing  from  election ;  the  idea  of  the  justification  of  the  individual 
as  an  element  in  no  way  especially  prominent,  and  not  in  the  least 
decisive,  in  the  carrying  out  of  the  election  which  determines 
ever3'thing;  the  idea  of  grace  as  in  its  very  nature,  and  therefore 
of  necessity,  bound  to  no  order  or  condition  etc.  In  short,  when 
closely  examined,  with  a  view  to  its  real  essence  and  final  result, 
the  modern  Missourian  doctrine  of  election  resembles  that  of  old 
Calvinism  as  closely  as  one  o.^^  resembles  another,  and  differs 
from  it  only  in  the  inconsistency  of  its  thinking  and  in  the  dishon^ 
esty  of  its  polemics.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  Amyraldine 
form  of  Calvinism;  Amyraldism  and  modern  Missourianism  are 
genuine  twin  brothers  (compare  above,  p.  37  sq.). 


HL 

THE   DOCTRINE  OF   PREDESTINATION   IN  THE 
MISSOURI   SYNOD. 


H.    APPENDIX :     AN  ALLY  OF  MODERN  MISSOURI  IN  GERMANY. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  modern  Missouri,,  for  one  thing, 
has  disdainfully  treated  the  almost  unanimous  disapproval  of  its 
doctrine  among  outside  Lutheran  theologians,  as  a  manifestation 
of  the  synergistic  spirit  prevaihng  everywhere,  and  has  even  ven- 
tured to  regard  this  disapproval  as  a  proof  for  the  correctness 
of  her  position;  on  the  other  hand,  however,  modern  Missouri 
has  been  quick  to  quote  with  joy,  as  at  least  a  partial  testimony  for 
her  side,  every  remark,  especially  of  one  of  these  "synergistic" 
German  theologians,  which  perhaps  only  halfway,  or  by  a  forced 
interpretation,  appeared  to  favor  her  view  (compare,  for  instance, 
above,  p.  117  sqq.).  Whether  modern  Missourians  have  made 
the  acquaintance  of  the  latest  German  scholar  who  takes  their 
position  more  than  any  other  of  whom  'we  know,  we  cannot 
say;  they  have  at  least  made  no  mention  of  the  fact.  And 
yet  he  is  evidently  a  scholarly  man,  a  Licentiate  (now  perhaps 
already  a  Doctor)  of  theology  and  a  professor  of  theology  in  one 
of  the  more  important  German  universities,  and  takes  the  modern 
Missourian  position  in  all  that  is  essential.  His  name  is  Karl 
Miiller.  In  the  year  1892  he  issued  a  work  of  163  pages  8°,  pub- 
lished by  Niemeyer  in  Halle  a.  S.,  entitled:  "Die  gottliche  Zuvor- 
ersehung  und  Erwahlung  in  ihrer  Bedeutung  fiir  den  Heilsstand 
des  einzelnen  Glaubigen  nach  dem  Evangelium  des  Paulus.  Eine 
biblisch-thelogische  Untersuchung"  (The  Divine  Predestination 
and  Election  in  its  Significance  for  Individual  Believers  according 
to  the  Gospel  of  Paul.  A  Biblical-theological  Study.)  Our  read- 
ers, who  have  followed  us  thus  far  in  our  presentation  of  the 
present  doctrinal  controversy,  will  perhaps  be  glad  to  become 
somewhat  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  this  new  and  real 
German  ally  of  modern  Missouri,  and  this  the  more  since  his 
writings  will  be  very  serviceable  in  forming  a  proper  estimate  of 
the  modern  Missourian  position. 

(178) 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     179 

"Whenever  the  free  power  of  divine  grace  was  recognized 
in  the  Christian  Church,  as  alone  working  the  salvation  not  only 
of  mankind  or  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  but  also  of  individual  be- 
lievers, this  faith  found  expression  in  the  confession  of  the  divine 
predestination  and  election  of  believers  unto  salvation.  And  just 
as  frequently  objections  were  raised  against  this  doctrine  by  an 
ethically  inclined  speculation"  (p.  1).  This  sounds  altogether  Hke 
a  modern  Missourian  introduction;  "the  free  power  of  divine 
grace  as  alone  working  the  salvation  of  individual  believers"  finds 
its  natural  and  correct  expression  ouly  "in  the  confession  of  the 
predestination  and  election,"  i.  e.  as  the  author  and  modern  Mis- 
souri have  this  confession.  The  following  fundamental  line  of 
thought  agrees  equally  with  the  modern  Missourian  view:  "We 
are  treating  expressions  of  Paul's  experience  of  faith,  not  a  specu- 
lative problem.  Accordingly,  we  will  be  compelled  to  reject  all 
logical  deductions  which  the  Apostle  does  not  state  explicitly. 
We  shall  try  to  turn  away  an  entire  series  of  questions  which  serve 
only  to  confuse  the  true  understanding  of  Paul's  Gospel"  (p.  3). 
This  may  indeed  be  correct ;  yet  it  may  also  be  taken  as  a  founda- 
tion for  isolating,  in  the  modern  Missourian  fashion,  those  Scrip- 
ture passages  which  treat  of  election  from  other  passages  and  doc- 
trines of  the  Scriptures,  and  for  adopting  all  sorts  of  logical  contra- 
dictions and  mysteries,  and  in  reality  it  is  so  taken,  as  will  appear 
from  the  following. 

Our  author,  like  modern  Missouri,  rejects  a  double  predesti- 
nation, unto  Hfe  and  unto  death,  as  Calvin  adopted  it.  "To  be 
sure,  the  apostle  could  not  speak  of  a  counsel  of  mercy  on  the  part 
of  God  extending  over  all  mankind,  if  he  harbored  the  opinion 
that  God's  counsel  had  explicitly  excluded  a  number  of  individuals 
from  salvation"  (p.  13  sq.).  "There  remains  no  room  for  an  eter- 
nal counsel  of  destruction  extending  over  a  part  of  mankind"  (p. 
17  ).  "When  we  consider  that  Paul  confesses  a  perfectly  free 
pardoning  of  the  sinner,  supported  by  no  claim  of  any  kind, 
there  appears  to  be,  from  this  point  of  view,  nothing  in  the  way  to 
hinder  the  acceptance  of  the  particularism  just  described.  When 
Paul  praises  the  incomprehensible  and  wholly  unmerited  grace  he 
has  received,  he  cannot  possibly  find  it  unjust  that  others  are  not 
pardoned.  The  very  humiliating  experience  of  his  own  unworthi- 
ness  demonstrates  to  him  that  no  man  has  a  right  to  demand 
pardon.  God  may  justly  damn  all  men;  if  He  pardons  some, 
who  shall  raise  objections  even  apparently  just?     Because  Calvin 


180  The  Present   Co>itroversy  on  Predestination. 

has  followed  these  considerations,  his  doctrine  of  the  decretum 
horribile  is  infinitely  nearer  the  true  idea  of  Paul's  Gospel  than 
all  synergistic  theories  which  are  far  removed  from  these  con- 
siderations. Still  the  idea  of  particularism  cannot  be  carried  out 
in  the  face  of  such  expressions  of  the  apostle  as  ascribe  to  Christ 
an  (inclusive)  all-embracing  importance  for  the  whole  human 
race,  especially  in  the  face  of  passages  which  place  the  head  of  the 
old  humanity,  Adam,  over  against  the  head  of  the  new  humanity 
(Rom.  5,  12-21;  1  Cor.  15,  22).  Paul  could  not  have  written 
thus,  if  he  had  been  of  the  opinion  that  God's  eternal  counsel 
had  delivered  over  or  left  a  pa'rt  of  humanity  to  eternal  destruc- 
tion. .  .  .  Hence  this  must  be  accepted  as  Pauline  doctrine,  that 
God  rejects  no  man  on  account  of  common  sinfulness,  but  only 
on  account  of  the  rejection  of  grace"  (p.  121  sq.). 

"And  yet  man's  salvation  depends  exclusively  upon  predesti- 
nation. The  thought  of  election  and  predestination  never  meets  us 
with  the  intention  of  explaining  anything  but  the  saved  condition 
of  believers ;  for  this  however,  it  is  the  only  sufficient  foundation" 
(p.  23).  "The  thought  is  far  from  Paul  that  God's  government 
of  the  world  is  like  that  of  a  king  which  knows  how  to  realize 
royal  thoughts  at  the  head  of  a  free  people.  His  Gospel,  on  the 
contrary,  is  governed  by  the  thought  that  the  salvation  of  men 
enslaved  by  sin  rests  only  upon  the  eternal  and  free  election  of 
God's  grace.  The  term  Election  with  him  is  always  made  to 
serve  the  purpose  of  expressing  sharply  the  freedom  of  divine 
action  from  all  historic  conditions.  He  knows  none  but  an  abso- 
lute election,  grounded  in  the  counsel  of  eternity  (Rom.  8,  28, 
compare  33;  Eph.  1,  4)."  (P.  130  sq.).  This  entire  view  is  also 
that  of  modern  Missouri;  only  the  author  is  too  honest  to  deny 
with  modern  Missouri  that  election  is  "absolute". 

And  of  this  absolute  election,  conditioned  upon  nothing  in 
man,  we  can  and  should  be  absolutely  certain;  so  teaches  our 
author  together  with  modern  Missouri.  "In  the  admission  that 
individual  believers  here  seek  the  certainty  of  salvation,  an  ap- 
peal might  be  made  to  the  fact  that  in  the  triumphant  list  of  all 
those  things  that  cannot  separate  us  from  Christ''  (Rom.  8,  31, 
etc.),  "death,  indeed,  and  life,  angels  and  principalities  and  pow- 
ers, things  present  and  things  to  come,  and  all  other  creatures 
appear — but  that  our  own  sin  and  weakness  is  not  mentioned  in 
this  series.  It  might  be  thought  that  Paul  desires  to  express 
only  this  certainty,  that   God  knows  how   to   protect   believers 


The  Doctrine  of  Predcstinatio)i  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     181 

against  all  hostile  powers  of  the  world  till  they  reach  their  eternal 
goal.  One  might  think  that  the  apostle  adds  the  silent  condition : 
if  these  believers  really  prove  faithful.  But  such  thoughts  would 
contain  only  a  small  measure  of  truth.  It  was,  indeed,  impos- 
sible for  Paul  to  add  for  instance  wilful  sin  to  the  things  re- 
counted in  verses  38  sq.  For  this  is  self-evident"  (also  in  an 
absolute  election  which  regards  no  conduct  of  man  and  is  carried 
out  irresistibly?)  "that  no  Christian  can  believe  himself  to  be 
predestinated  from  eternity,  when  he  at  the  same  time  consciously 
harbors  sin.  As  far  as  false,  slothful  security  is  concerned  we 
must  point  to  the  proper  admonitions.  But  in  this  case  where 
the  heart  is  painfully  troubled  by  the  legitimate  question,  whether 
we  are  able  to  fulfill  the  'condition'  of  salvation,  it  would  be 
cruel  simply  to  presuppose  this  condition  as  something  self- 
evident"  (would  it  be  cruel  when  God's  grace  makes  the  fulfilment 
of  this  condition  truly  possible  for  every  man,  yea,  when  He 
Himself  fulfills  it  in  every  one  who  does  not  make  this  fulfilment 
impossible  by  continued  wilful  resistance?).  "Paul  is  far  from 
any  attempts  of  putting  salvation  on  the  tottering  foundation  of 
human  performance.  He  cannot  refrain  from  pointing  to  some- 
thing at  least  that  is  attached  to  the  human  subject.  How  else 
could  he  gain  subjective  certainty?  But  he  immediately  with- 
draws this  something,  the  loving  longing  of  the  heart  for  God, 
from  human  performance,  by  making  it  a  sign  of  divine  work.  In 
this  way  alone  he  attains  the  unconditioned  certainty  of  salvation. 
To  insert  any  kind  of  an  'if  —  however  much  modern  synergistic 
thought  may  be  inclined  thereto  —  must  lead  to  a  total  misun- 
derstanding of  Paul's  certainty  of  election"  (p.  21  sq.).  Who  does 
not  recognize  in  this  the  essential  features  of  the  modern  Mis- 
sourian  argumentation? 

The  author  speaks  in  all  this,  precisely  as  does  modern  Mis- 
souri, of  election  in  the  narrower  sense,  of  the  choice  of  definite 
individual  persons  unto  the  infallible  attainment  of  salvation,  as 
the  passages  quoted  above,  and  also  the  entire  purpose  of  his 
work,  show.  Hence  he  says,  p.  18:  "On  the  background  of 
God's  universal  counsel  of  salvation  we  must  now  sketch  the  pre- 
destination and  election  of  individual  believers  unto  salvation." 
His  idea  of  election  includes,  just  as  little  as  that  of  modern  Mis- 
souri, the  universal  counsel  of  salvation ;  he  takes  this  only  as  the 
''background"  of  election.  Both  then,  the  author  and  modern 
Missouri,  have  a  different,  a  narrower,  idea  of  election  than  the 


182  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

Formula  of  Concord;  and  yet  both  predicate  of  election  in  their 
sense,  the  narrower  one,  what  the  Formula  of  Concord  predicates 
of  election  in  its  sense,  the  wider  one,  and  predicates  especially 
of  that  part  of  election  which  they  exclude  from  their  idea  of  it. 
Their  apparent  agreement  with  the  Formula  of  Concord  is,  there- 
fore, in  reality  only  a  contradiction  of  it. 

Our  author  also  declares,  in  full  harmony  with  modern  Mis- 
souri, not  merely  as  does  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  every 
faithful  Lutheran,  that  there  is  much  inexplicable  and  mysterious 
in  the  temporal  execution  of  the  eternal  decrees  of  God  regarding 
man's  salvation,  but  also  that  there  exists  an  insolvable  contradic- 
tion for  our  thinking  between  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation 
and  predestination  itself.  So  we  read  for  instance  on  p.  02:  "It 
lies  in  the  nature  of  the  subject,  that  also  in  the  doctrine  of  election 
the  contradiction  remains.  For  it  is  and  remains  a  contradiction  to 
base  all  salvation  on  the  grace  of  God  and  all  destruction  on  man's 
guilt."  Furthermore,  p.  127:  "The  logical  incongruity  between 
the  (all-embracing)  counsel  of  salvation  and  the  unconditional 
election  of  individuals  must  simply  be  acknowledged." 

The  author's  judgment  regarding  our  old  dogmaticians  is 
also  similar  to  that  of  modern  Missouri.  We  read  on  p.  87  sq. : 
"But  this  did  not  prevent  the  (later)  Lutheran  interpreters  from 
again  choosing  the  old  paths"  (i.  e.  in  contradiction  to  Luther 
(?)  basing  personal  election  with  the  most  of  our  old  teachers  on 
God's  foresight,  and  appealing  in  this  to  Rom.  8,  29;  11,  2  by 
taking  -poyv^mn/.zv^  in  the  sense  of  knowing  in  advance.) 
"They  thought  to  escape  absolute  predestination  by  this  means. 
And  indeed  the  Lutherans,  as  could  not  well  be  expected  other- 
wise, unanimously  make  faith  foreknown  of  God.  Over  against 
the  evident  charge  of  Pelagianism  faith  was  subsequently"  (?) 
"recognized  as  the  work  of  God,  while  the  fact  was  gladly  for- 
gotten that  hereby  the  advantage  sought  was  lost."  Page  89  sq. : 
"Thus  after  the  manner  of  Origen  the  most  dissimilar  spirits  come 
together  in  the  interpretation  which  adds  praescire  and  _J?1V 
God's  foreknowledge  is  not  merely  theoretical,  but  practical ;  His 
prsescientia  is  connected  with  His  approbatio  of  what  is  known. 
This  interpretation,  differing  but  apparently  from  that  commonly 
received,  makes  the  synergistic  principle  of  tradition  stand  out 
sharply.  It  has  been  common  especially  in  Arminian  circles. 
Abraham  Calov,  Bibl.  illustr.  II.  p.  142,  181,  who  wrote  his  com- 
mentary as  a  refutation  of  Grotius,  did  not  contradict  the  Armin- 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Missouri  Synod.     183 

ians  on  this  point.  He  is  dissatisfied  merely  because  Grotius  ac- 
cepts an  approbatio  pietatis,  while  he  himself  prefers  to  speak, 
after  the  manner  of  Lutheran  scholasticism,  of  a  prasvisio  fidei, 
and  following  this  of  an  approbatio.  A  few  of  the  moderns  hold 
to  this  hybrid  interpretation,  generally  hiding  their  synergism  by 
indefinite  explanations,  and  touching  in  part  with  the  sound  of 
their  words  the  true  explanation.  Also  the  utterances  of  von 
Hofmann  ('Romerbrief  347  sq.,  464),  concerning  a  'right  cog- 
nition' as  an  'act  of  appropriation  aiming  at  acquaintance  with 
things  akin',  I  must  put  into  this  category."  So  then  according 
to  our  author,  as  well  as  according  to  modern  Missouri,  the  mode 
of  teaching  employed  by  our  old  dogmaticians  includes  synergism, 
or  it  does  not  explain  what  it  means  to  explain.  It  is  honest  on 
his  part  that  he  designates  von  Hofmann,  whom  modern  Mis- 
sourians  quoted  for  their  side  on  the  meaning  of  -fioyv^uxTxttv 
(see  above,  p.  117  sqq.),  as  essentially  agreeing  with  our  old 
teachers. 

As  may  already  be  seen  by  the  foregoing,  our  author's  ex- 
planation in  regard  to  -pnyv^waxeiv,  Rom.  8,  29  etc.,  is  essen- 
tially the  same  as  that  of  modern  Missouri.  Like  modern  Mis- 
sourians  he  is  at  great  trouble  to  demonstrate  that  this  expression 
does  not  mean  to  say  what  our  old  teachers  found  in  it,  that  it  is 
therefore  no  proof  for  tlie  Scripturalness  of  their  doctrine.  Thus 
we  read  for  instance  on  page  98:  "■  T.pojvjfuriy.zvj  must  in  some 
way  predicate  a  decree  of  God."  Page  97  sq.:  "xA.t  any  rate  it 
must  be  held  fast  that  -jjoyv^wa/.zc^.,  yiv^n/.tvj  (j7"T*)  is  a  com- 
plete idea  in  itself,  needing  only  one  object.  There  exists  no 
reason  for  translating  and  interpreting  yt'^Mnxetv  and  its  com- 
posites in  the  Pauline  epistles,  where  these  words  with  a  simple 
object  speak  of  God's  relation  to  man,  in  any  other  way  but  this 
of  free  election  unto  salvation."  Entirely  the  same  view  as  that 
of  modern  Missouri  (compare  above,  p.  117). 

Accordingly  our  author  has  exactly  the  same  position  as  mod- 
ern Missouri  in  all  essential  points.  He  is  flesh  of  their  flesh  and 
bone  of  their  bone,  in  spite  of  a  few  variations  in  minor  points  their 
genuine  and  true  brother  in  the  faith  as  far  as  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination is  concerned.  And  this  man  is  a  regular  Professor  of 
Reformed  Theology  in  the  University  of  Erlangen,  called  to  this 
position  after  the  publication  of  his  work  on  election,  and  most 
likely  called  there  in  part  because  of  this  work.  He  therefore 
knows  where  he  belongs,  and  the  authorities  who  called  him  also 


184  The  Present  Controversy  on  Predesttnatioji. 

know  where  he  belongs :  his  doctrinal  position  stamps  him  as  Re- 
formed, even  if  he  does  not  agree  with  Calvin  in  all  things.  His 
fundamental  view  is  the  Reformed  as  distinguished  from  the 
Lutheran.  And  what  then  is  the  modern  Missourian  view  which 
is  like  his  in  all  that  is  essential,  as  like  as  one  o^gg  is  to  another? 


IV, 

THE   DOCTRINE   OF   PREDESTINATION   IN   THE 
OHIO  SYNOD. 


From  the  very  beginning,  from  the  year  1872  till  the  year 
1881,  the  Ohio  Synod  belonged  to  the  Synodical  Conference  and 
sent  delegates  to  every  one  of  its  meetings.  She  was  next  to  the 
Norwegian  Synod  in  her  friendly  relations  to  the  Missouri  Synod. 
Not  infrequently  unpleasant  scenes  occurred  at-  the  meetings  of 
the  Synodical  Conference  between  the  delegates  of  the  Missouri 
Synod  and  those  of  the  Wisconsin  and  of  the  Minnesota  Synods, 
especially  of  the  former,  and  there  was  open  talk  of  "another  spir- 
it"; but  the  synodical  intercourse  between  Ohio  and  Missouri 
was  always  peaceful  and  considerate.  Not  long  before  the  out- 
break of  the  predestination  controversy  one  of  the  leading  men  of 
the  Ohio  Synod,  Dr.  M.  Loy,  was  chosen  to  fill  a  theological  pro- 
fessorship in  the  Seminary  at  St.  Louis,  while  Dr.  Schmidt  and  the 
author  of  the  present  sketch  were  already  not  sufifiiciently  orthodox 
to  be  considered  candidates  for  such  a  position.  Although  other 
intentions  of  no  praiseworthy  character  helped  to  prompt  the  call 
of  Dr.  Loy,  yet  this  call  shows  that  as  far  as  the  "spirit"  of  Ohio 
was  concerned,  which  was  represented  in  Dr.  Loy,  because  of  his 
position  and  activity,  as  much  as  in  any  other  man,  Missouri  had 
no  serious  objections  to  offer.  As  far  as  public  doctrine  was  con- 
cerned there  was,  of  course,  full  unanimity  among  the  synods  con- 
stituting the  Synodical  Conference,  since  this  body  had  been 
formed  for  the  very  purpose  of  being  a  representative  and  bulwark 
of  pure  doctrine  and  practice  in  our  land,  also  over  against  other 
bodies  calling  themselves  Lutheran.  As  we  have  already  shown 
(above,  p.  53  sqq.),  up  to  the  year  1877  all  could  in  charity  be- 
lieve, in  fact  were  bound  to  believe,  that  in  spite  of  a  few  strange 
or  even  wrong  expressions,  Missouri  still  held  fast  in  all  upright- 
ness and  seriousness  to  the  doctrine  which  "the  theologians  of  our 
Church  in  the  17th  century  have  taught  on  predestination  and  de- 
fended against  the  Calvinists."  To  deny  this  would  have  been 
to  declare  Dr.  Walther  and  the  entire  Missouri  Synod,  which  had 

(185) 


186  77^1?  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

silently  acknowledged  as  its  own  the  solemn  declaration  he  made 
in  her  name  in  this  regard,  guilty  of  hypocrisy  and  deception. 
The  very  fact  that  this  solenm  declaration  appeared  about  a  month 
before  the  first  meeting  of  the  Synodical  Conference,  and  called 
forth  no  protest  or  anything  of  the  kind  on  the  part  of  the  Ohio 
Synod,  proves  conclusively  that  the  latter  agreed  with  Hun- 
nius,  Hutter,  Gerhard,  etc.,  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  al- 
though, perhaps,  a  few  of  her  members  may  have  shared  Dr. 
Walther's  dislike  of  the  expression  "election  in  view  of  faith",  and 
may  have  occasionally  expressed  this  opinion.  The  authority  of 
Dr.  Walther  as  the  chief  representative  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy 
was  so  great  in  the  Missouri  Synod  and  in  the  Synodical  Confer- 
ence, that  one  was  glad  to  adopt  his  views  and  expressions  where 
it  could  be  done  with  a  good  conscience,  especially  when  one  knew 
by  past  unpleasant  experiences  how  easily  he  took  offense  at 
modes  of  expression  and  argumentation  differing  from  his  own, 
and  suspected  danger  in  them.  Thus  the  Ohio  Synod  also  used 
and  recommended  the  Lutheran  doctrinal  and  devotional  works, 
Dieterich's  Catechism, the  Weimar  Bible,  Scriver's  "Seelenschatz",. 
(Treasure  of  the  Soul)  Masius'  "Unterscheidungslehren"  (Distinc- 
tive Doctrines),  the  old  dogmaticians  and  their  sunnnary  in 
Schmid's  Dogmatics,  in  all  of  which  the  doctrine  of  an  election 
in  view  of  faith  was  explicitly  taught.  All  this  could  not  have 
been  done  in  honesty,  if  the  Synod  had  not  agreed  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  old  dogmaticians,  if  it  had  favored  the  modern  Mis- 
sourian  doctrine. 

In  the  autunm  of  1877  the  w^ell  known  meeting  of  the  Western 
District  of  the  Missouri  Synod  was  held,  and  here  a  fundamental 
view  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination  and  conversion 
revealed  itself,  which,  after  close  examination,  could  no  longer 
be  regarded  as  the  Lutheran  view%  although  a  proper  estimate 
of  it  was  rendered  very  difficult  by  the  constantly  recurring  appeal 
to  the  assent  also  of  the  old  dogmaticians,  who  were  known  to 
Dr.  Walther,  the  theseist  and  chief  speaker  at  this  meeting,  as  to 
no  other  man.  It  was  hardly  possible  to  think  and  believe  that 
Dr.  Walther,  the  pillar  of  orthodoxy,  had  really  stepped  upon  un- 
Lutheran,  Calvinistic  ground.  For  months  the  attempt  was  made 
"to  find  a  Biblical-Lutheran  meaning  in  the  erroneous  propo- 
sitions of  Dr.  Walther,"  and  even  when  it  became  apparent  that 
this  was  in  vain  and  impossible,  those  who  were  concerned  shrank 
from  publicly  opposing  the  new  doctrine  and  counseled  against 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Ohio  Synod.         187 

such  opposition,  until  all  possible  private  means  had  been  exhaus- 
ted for  adjusting  the  doctrinal  difference  (compare  above,  p.  106 
sqq.)-  Then,  too,  not  everybody,  especially  in  the  other  synods 
of  the  Synodical  Conference,  found  time  and  opportunity  for  a 
close  examination  of  this  Report  of  the  Western  District  im- 
mediately after  its  appearance.  It  was  no  wonder  therefore,  that 
no  one  publicly  raised  his  voice  at  the  7th  meeting  of  the  Synodical 
Conference,  in  July,  1878,  at  Ft.  Wayne,  against  the  report  of 
C.  A.  Frank,  at  that  time  professor,  who  was  entrusted  with  an 
examination  of  this  Western  Report,  and  who  had  nothing  but 
words  of  praise  for  "the  glorious  doctrinal  discussions  on  predesti- 
nation." Most  of  the  delegates  of  the  Ohio  Synod,  as  perhaps  also' 
those  of  other  synods,  the  delegates  of  the  Missouri  Synod  not 
excepted,  without  doubt  did  not  know  precisely  what  this  Report 
contained,  and  the  few  who  did  know  its  contents  more  or  less 
precisely,  and  who  had  their  doubts  in  this  regard,  shrank  from 
coming  out  publicly  as  long  as  all  other  means  for  coming  to  an 
understanding  had  not  been  exhausted.  Whether  now  this 
course  is  approved  or  not,  the  fact  that  no  voice  was  raised  pub- 
licly against  Prof.  Frank's  report  assuredly  does  not  prove  that 
all  the  delegates  present,  especially  also  those  of  the  Ohio  Synod, 
agreed  at  that  time  with  the  fundamental  view  in  the  Report  of  the 
Western  District  of  the  Missouri  Synod,  which,  moreover,  was  still 
veiled  in  various  ways. 

At  the  colloquium,  which  took  place  in  July,  1879,  between 
Dr.  Walther  and  Prof.  Schmidt  at  Columbus,  O.,  it  certainly  ap- 
peared that  the  theological  leaders  of  the  Ohio  Synod  were  not 
ready  to  follow  the  former  in  his  erroneous  Calvinistic  course,, 
but  were  determined  to  abide  by  the  old  Lutheran  doctrine.  The 
same  thing  appeared  at  the  colloquium  in  January,  1881,  held  at 
Milwaukee  between  the  professors  and  presidents  of  the  Synod- 
ical Conference  (see  "Zeitblatter"  1882,  p.  214-228).  At  its  close 
"Craemer  yet  made  a  sorrowful  attempt  to  separate  the  Ohioans 
from  Schmidt.  But  Loy  made  the  fine  reply,  that,  in  case  of  open 
controversy,  it  could  not  be  in  the  least  doubtful  which  side  he 
would  espouse."  And  he  was  true  to  his  word.  Since  all  hope 
for  ending  the  strife  in  private  had  vanished,  after  a  series  of 
purely  positive  articles,  stating  and  defending  the  old  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  election  in  view  of  faith,  had  already  been  published 
in  the  Lutheran  Standard,  edited  by  Dr.  Loy,  there  appeared  in 
February,  1881,  The  Columbus  Theological  Magazine,  published 


188  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

and  edited  by  Dr.  Loy.  Its  very  first  article,  "The  Burning 
Question",  took  a  clear  and  unequivocal  stand,  as  well  thetically 
as  antithetically.  The  circumstance  that  the  Magazine  made  its 
first  appearance  just  at  this  time  is  declared  to  be  a  result  of  the 
new  doctrine  introduced  by  Dr.  Walther  and  his  adherents.  In 
Christian  charity  their  integrity  is  not  doubted;  but  "that  they 
have  erred,  and  have  troubled  Israel  by  promulgating  their  error, 
IS  our  sincere  conviction."  "For  three  hundred  years  there  has, 
by  the  admission  of  all  parties,  been  in  the  Lutheran  Church  an 
established  doctrine,  which  the  Missouri  Synod  is  now  striving 
to  displace.  It  is  taught  with  one  consent  by  all  the  prominent 
writers  of  the  Church  throughout  that  period.  There  was  no 
other  in  vogue  that  claimed  the  Lutheran  name.  That  is  the  doc- 
trine which  we  maintain  and  defend."  "Election  in  its  strict  sense 
is  thus  only  a  part  of  the  general  decree  of  salvation,  not  a  co- 
ordinate factor  that  enters  as  a  disturbing  element.  The  purpose 
of  God  from  eternity  is  to  save  all  them  that  believe.  By  His 
foreknowledge  He  saw  from  the  beginning  who  among  the  mul- 
titudes of  men  would  become  believers.  These  He  elected.  Our 
theologians  therefore  call  foreknowledge  the  eye  of  election,  with- 
out which  it  would  be  blind.  It  is  not  a  cause  of  predestination, 
but  simply  the  means  of  recognizing,  humanly  speaking,  the  per- 
sons whom  it  was  God's  purpose  to  adopt  and -save,  i.  e.  of  discern- 
ing the  faith  which  distinguishes  the  accepted  in  the  Beloved  from 
the  rejected  in  their  unbelief.  Not  even  faith  is  strictly  a  cause. 
That  which  moves  God  to  elect  is  His  grace  and  the  merits  of  His 
beloved  Son;  the  former  is  the  internal,  the  latter  the  external 
moving  cause.  Faith  is  merely  the  divine  requisite  without 
which,  in  the  purpose  of  God,  the  causes  of  election  could  not  be 
operative  in  the  individuals."  The  following  objections  are  raised 
against  the  modern  Missourian  doctrine:  1.  It  is  "an  outgrowth 
of  philosophical  speculation,"  "an  effort  by  the  finite  mind  to  solve 
an  insoluble  mystery,"  namely  the  mystery  that,  although  God's 
will  is  to  save  all  men,  still  only  a  few  are  saved  in  reality.  2.  It 
is  damaging  to  the  revealed  doctrine  of  God  and  His  attributes, 
in  that  it  asserts  that  God  has  not  chosen  the  majority  of  mankind, 
although  He  could  have  chosen  them.  3.  It  contradicts  sound 
exegetical  principles,  refusing  to  have  Scripture  interpreted  by 
Scripture.  4.  It  "endangers  the  great  central  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication by  faith  and  thus  threatens  to  revolutionize  our  whole 
doctrinal  system",  by  refusing  to  give  faith  its  decisive  position. 


The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Ohio  Synod.         189 

5.  '"It  undermines  the  precious  Biblical  doctrine  of  the  means  of 
grace"  claiming  that  these  cannot  save  man  without  the  particular 
grace  of  election.  6.  It  is  destructive  of  the  comfort  which  the 
Gospel  is  designed  to  bring,  for  it  makes  particular  election  de- 
cide everything  from  the  start,  The  following  articles  also  attack 
the  false  doctrine  of  Missouri  severely,  yet  always  by  purely  pos- 
itive arguments,  honoring  the  person  and  motives  of  the  oppon- 
ent, and  this  in  spite  of  the  personal  turn  which  Dr.  Walther  and 
"F.  P."  as  his  eager  second  liad  given  to  the  controversy  from  the 
beginning.  The  Magazine,  too,  does  not  hesitate  to  declare  (for 
instance,  p.  216  sqq.  238),  with  our  old  teachers  and  with  the  Con- 
fession, that  election  did  not  take  place  without  all  regard  to  man's 
foreseen  "conduct"  toward  the  means  of  grace  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
operating'  through  them  (compare  above,  p.  166  sqq.). 

On  the  8th  of  September  of  the  same  year,  1881,  the  Joint 
Synod  of  Ohio  and  Adjacent  States  assembled  at  Wheeling,  W. 
Va.,  for  an  extra  session  rendered  necessary  by  the  predestination 
controversy.  The  subject  to  be  considered  was,  first  of  all,  the 
position  of  Synod  in  this  controversy,  and  its  present  relation  to 
the  Synodical  Conference.  After  a  protracted  and  thorough  dis- 
cussion the  following  resolution  was  voted  upon:  "We  herewith 
confess  anew  the  doctrine  of  predestination  as  it  is  contained  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  and  as  in  general  it  has  ever  been  taught 
by  the  fathers  of  our  Church ;  especially  do  we  hold  the  doctrine 
of  our  fathers,  that  the  ordination  of  the  elect  unto  eternal  life 
has  taken  place  in  view  of  faith,  i.  e.  of  Christ's  merit  apprehended 
by  faith,  to  be  Scriptural  and  Symbolical,  and  therefore  truly 
Lutheran.  Therefore,  be  it  resolved :  That  the  doctrine  here  con- 
fessed by  us  anew  be,  as  in  the  past,  so  also  in  the  future,  the  only 
doctrine  authorized  in  our  institutions,  schools,  publications,  and 
churches."  One  hundred  and  ten  pastors  and  33  delegates  voted 
for  this  resolution,  and  8  pastors  and  3  delegates  against  it. 
Nearly  all  those  pastors  who  were  not  present  and  those  congre- 
gations not  represented  by  delegates  received  this  resolution  as 
expressing  also  their  conviction.  Those  pastors  who  continued 
in  their  oppostiton  to  this  resolution,  more,  as  it  appeared,  because 
of  their  attachment  to  Missouri  and  especially  to  Dr.  Walther,  than 
because  of  a  clearly  conscious  agreement  with  the  new  doctrine 
of  Missouri,  formed,  at  first,  so  as  to  draw  their  congregations 
more  easily  with  them,  an  orginization  of  their  own,  ostensibly 
apart  from  and  above  the  contending  Synods,  but  dissolved  this  a 


190  The  Present   Controversy  on  Predestination. 

few  years  after  and  entered  the  Missouri  Synod.  That  resolution, 
although  ridiculed  by  the  St.  Louis  men  because  of  its  somewhat 
imperfect  form,  nevertheless  states  the  position  of  the  Synod  in 
clear  and  altogether  unambiguous  terms,  and  declares  in  an  un- 
mistakable manner  what  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Ohio  Synod 
on  this  point  before  and  after  this  synodical  meeting  and  up  to  the 
present  day,  and  what,  God  willing,  shall  remain  its  doctrine,  in 
spite  of  all  the  perversions  and  vilifications  of  modern  Missouri. 
In  our  "Lutherische  Kirchenzeitung"for  the  15th of  October, 1881, 
this  resolution  is  explained  more  fully  over  against  all  attempted 
perversions  (p.  345  sq.  and  348  sq.). — As  regarded  her  relation 
to  the  Synodical  Conference,  the  Synod  resolved  to  withdraw 
from  this  body,  at  the  same  time  expressing  her  deep  regret  that 
such  a  step  should  have  become  necessary;  for  the  Missouri 
Synod,  by  her  conduct  hitherto  toward  all  serious  opponents  of 
the  new  doctrine,  had  frustrated  every  hope  of  profitably  dis- 
cussing the  doctrinal  difiference  at  the  meetings  of  the  Synodical 
Conference  which  she  controlled.  The  course  of  the  following 
meeting  of  this  body,  in  which  Dr.  Schmidt,  although  a  legitimate 
delegate  of  the  Norwegian  Synod,  was  not  permitted  to  defend 
himself,  proved  the  wisdom  of  this  resolution. 

Whoever  desires  to  inform  himself  further  concerning  the 
standpoint  of  the  Ohio  Synod,  as  opposed  to  the  modern  IMissour- 
ian  error  in  its  manifold  ramifications  and  offshoots,  must  be  re- 
ferred especially  to  her  theological  periodicals,  the  above  men- 
tioned Theological  Magazine  and  the  "Theologische  Zeitblatter", 
which  appeared  one  year  later.  The  present  work  is,  of  course, 
also  written  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Ohio  Synod,  and  may  thus 
serve  to  elucidate  it.  The  impartial  reader  will  find  that  this 
Synod  desires  and  does  nothing  but  hold  fast  to  the  old  Lutheran, 
and  at  the  same  time  old  Missourian,  standpoint  over  against  all 
human  sophistries  and  pretended  "reformatory"  innovations. 
The  objections  brought  against  this  position  by  Missouri  are  the 
same  as  those  that  have  always  been  brought  by  Calvinists  against 
Lutherans,  without  their  being  able  to  prove  them  legitimate. 
In  the  eyes  of  Calvinists,  Lutherans  have  always  been  Semi-Pel- 
agians and  synergists.  When  therefore  modern  Missouri  calls 
the  Ohio  Synod  synergistic  for  understanding  the  Confession 
and  the  Scriptures  as  the  Lutheran  -Church  has  always  understood 
them,  she  simply  proves  that  she  is  dominated  by  the  spirit  and 
fundamental  views  of  Calvinism. 


-INTUITU  FIDEI" 


BY  REV.  PROF.  F.  A.  SCHMIDT,  D.  D., 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN 


BY 

REV.  R.  C.  H.  LENSKI,  A.M. 

AND 

REV.  C.  B.  GOHDES,  A.M. 


PART  L 

WHAT  WERE  THE  CONTENTS  OR  THE  SUBSTANCE  OF  THE  DOCTRINE, 

TAUGHT  BY  OUR  LUTHERAN  CHURCH  FATHERS,  THAT 

GOD  ELECTED  IN  VIEW  OF  FAITH? 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

1)  Over  against  Romanism  our  Lutheran  Church  liolds  fast 
the  maxim,  that  we  are  justified  and  saved  Sola  Fide.  i.  e.  by 
faith  alone.  To  be  sure,  these  words  as  they  stand  are  not  found 
recorded  in  the  Bible,  and  therefore  the  papists  always  delight 
in  demanding  of  us  to  show  where  "by  faith  alone"  is  written. 
But  the  thing  itself  is  found  clearly  and  explicitly  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Over  against  Calvinism  Intuitu  Fidei,  i.  e.  in  view  of  faith 
(God  has  chosen  sinners  unto  salvation)  has  similarly  come  to  be 
a  watchword  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  Of  this  expression  it 
must  likewise  be  said  that  it  is  not  found  recorded  in  the  Bible; 
nevertheless  it  is  just  as  scriptural  as  the  Sola  Fide,  for  the  real 
meaning  and  true  sense  of  this  terse  formula  is  one  of  the  precious 
doctrines  revealed  in  the  Gospel. 

•  2)  Sola  Fide  and  Intuitu  Fidei  are  at  bottom  only  two  dif- 
ferent formulas  to  express  the  same  fundamental  Gospel  truth. 
God's  gracious  will  in  Christ  Jesus  toward  us  sinners  is  in  its 
essence  one  and  the  same  will,  whether  we  regard  it  as  it  comes 
to  be  carried  out  in  time  (in  actually  justifying  and  saving  sin- 
ners), or  look  at  it  as  fixing  the  order  of  salvation  already  in 
eternity,  and  choosing  in  accordance  therewith,  by  virtue  of 
God's  onmiscient  foreknowledge,  each  and  every  single  person 
unto  salvation,  before  the  foundations  of  the  world  were  laid. 
Sinners  are  justified  and  saved,  not  by  works  or  merits  of  their 
own,  but  alone  by  faith  in  God's  Son;  because  faith  alone  is  the 
proper  means  on  man's  part  for  partaking  of  Christ's  atonement 
and  merit,  and  thereby  also  of  God's  grace  unto  salvation.  To 
say  that  by  Sola  Fide  we  again  set  up  a  certain  work  and  merit 
on  man's  part,  would,  amon^  thinking  Lutherans  at  least,  appear 

(193) 


194  Inhdtii  Fidel. 

simply  ridiculous.  And  yet  by  Sola  Fide  we  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  faith  is  merely  an  instrument  in  God's  hands  for  carry- 
ing out  the  already  fixed  decree  of  justification  and  salvation  — 
a  means  employed  on  God's  part  in  actually  justifying  and  saving 
certain  men  already  otherwise  predestined  thereto.  No;  faith 
itself,  inasmuch  as  it  embraces  Christ's  merit,  is  the  thing  that 
decides  who  is  to  be  justified  and  saved.  Before  God  faith  con- 
stitutes the  difference  between  those  who  are  to  partake  of 
Christ's  merit  unto  justification  and  salvation,  and  those  who 
are  not  to  partake  of  it.  It  is  precisely  the  same  with  the  Intuitu 
Fidei;  the  only  difference  is  that  here  the  primary  emphasis  is 
laid  not  upon  the  exclusion  of  all  human  work,  merit,  and  worth- 
iness, but  upon  the  exclusion  of  the  Calvinistic  absolute  (mere, 
unconditional,  arbitrary)  will  of  God.  Our  fathers  never 
dreamed  of  infringing  in  any  way  upon  the  grace  of  God  or 
the  merits  of  Christ,  by  holding  fast  the  Sola  Fide;  on  the  con- 
trary, they  meant  to  emphasize  this  grace  of  God  and  merit  of 
Christ  fully  over  against  all  human  merit  and  worthiness.  And 
in  exactly  the  same  way  it  never  entered  their  heads  to  uphold 
in  the  least  man's  own  merit  or  worthiness  by  the  Intuitu  Fidei. 
In  both  instances  the  thing  at  stake  is  Christ's  merit,  which  alone 
is  valid;  and  faith  comes  in  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  the  one  and 
only  means,  ordained  of  God,  for  embracing  Christ's  saving 
merit.  On  the  other  hand,  our  fathers,  in  holding  the  Sola  Fide, 
never  imagined  that  God  had  no  regard  to  anything  in  the  sinner 
whom  He  desired  to  justify  and  save;  they  therefore  never  for 
a  moment  supposed  that  God,  by  virtue  of  His  free  and  wholly 
absolute  pleasure,  would  take  here  one  and  there  another  and 
make  them  partakers  of  Christ's  righteousness  and  merit,  thus 
having  regard  to  faith  only  as  a  means  for  carrying  out  this 
absolute  decree.  And  much  less  did  this  thought  enter  the 
minds  of  our  godly  and  orthodox  fathers  when  they  used  the 
term  Intuitu  Fidei.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  their  very  purpose 
by  this  orthodox  shibboleth  to  contradict  the  error  of  an  abso- 
lute election,  and  of  a  faith  which  is  only  a  means  for  realizing, 
or  compelling  the  execution  of  ("Durchsetzung"),  a  fixed  de- 
cree; they  meant  this  expression  to  be  an  obvious  and  immov- 
able landmark,  to  indicate  the  boundary  line  between  Calvinistic 
absolutism  and  evangelical  Lutheranism.  Our  fathers  desired 
to  ward  off  two  opposing  errors :   the  Romish  doctrine  of  works, 


Introductory  Remarks.  195 

and  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  arbitrary  grace.  The  Sola  Fide 
rejected  the  former  directly,  and  indirectly  also  the  latter.  The 
Intuitu  Fidei,  however,  rejected  the  latter  directly,  and  indirectly 
also  the  former.  For  in  neither  case  is  faith  treated  as  a  meri- 
torious act  or  virtue,  whose  worth  is  measured  by  the  Law, 
inasmuch  as  it  fulfills  a  command  of  God.  In  both  instances  it 
is  regarded  solely  as  the  means  on  man's  part,  ordained  in  the 
gracious  counsel  of  God,  for  embracing  the  allsuf^cient  merit 
of  Christ. 

3)  Dr.-  Samuel  Huber  plays  a  peculiar  role  in  the  history 
of  the  Intuitu  Fidei.  The  Colloquium  at  Moempelgart  between 
Jacob  Andrese  and  Theo.  Beza  (1586)  had  made  him  a  sworn 
enemy  of  Calvinism.  He  moved  from  Switzerland  into  Wuer- 
temberg,  and  accepted  a  pastorate  in  Derendingen.  On  the 
25th  of  September,  1592,  Stephan  Gerlach  arranged  a  disputation 
against  the  Calvinists,  at  Tuebingen.  The  following  theses  came 
up:  "Although  God  has  chosen  us  in  His  grace,  without  any 
merit  on  our  part,  this  was  not  without  regard  to  Christ's  obe- 
dience (in  whom  alone  there  is  salvation,  Acts  4,  12).  - —  Therefore 
we  say  that  we  are  chosen  in  Christ  as  our  Head,  through  Christ 
as  the  one  who  brings  us  unto  grace,  Eph.  1.  .  .  .  Consequently 
we  must  of  necessity  conclude,  that  election  has  not  been  with- 
out regard  to  faith  (necessario  infertur,  electionem  absque  intuitu 
fidei  non  factam  esse),  and  that  therefore  God's  efficient  grace, 
Christ's  meritorious  obedience,  and  our  appropriating  faith  are 
indissolubly  joined  together.  For  to  believe,  that  election  took 
place  in  Christ  as  our  Head,  and  through  Christ  as  our  Mediator, 
who  Himself  is  the  Book  of  Life;  to  believe  furthermore,  that 
we  are  in  Christ  only  through  faith,  and  that  without  faith  His 
blessings  do  not  help  us:  this  is  saying,  that  alone  through 
faith  in  His  blood  (sola  fide  in  sanguinem  ejus)  our  names  are 
written  in  the  album  of  heaven.  Although  this  faith  was  then 
not  actually  present  as  it  is  now,  it  was  by  no  means  absent  in 
the  eyes  of  God.  He  lives  in  a  changeless  present;  all  things 
are  before  Him  without  a  difference  in  time;  and  nothing  can 
escape  His  foreknowledge  (if  we  may  be  permitted  to  employ 
a  word  referring  to  ourselves  who  live  in  time).  For  this  reason 
election  is  said  to  have  taken  place  (Rom.  8,  29)  according  to 
the  foreknowledge  of  God,  that  is  according  to  His  foreknowledge 
of  faith  and  of  perseverance;    for  His  foreknowledge  is  always 


196  Intuitu  Fidei. 

such  when  applied  to  things  in  time.  And  Christ  affirms  this 
condition  explicitly,  Mark  16,  16:  'He  that  believeth  shall  be 
saved.'  And  2  Thess.  2,  13:  'God  hath  from  the  beginning- 
chosen  you  to  salvation  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  in 
behef  of  the  truth.'  [See  the  Greek.  —  Translator.]  Yet  we  dare 
not  conclude  from  this  that  election  took  place  for  the  sake  of 
faith  as  a  certain  kind  of  merit,  as  the  Calvinists  would  maliciously 
impute  to  us,  laying  Pelagianism  at  our  door,  and  are  not 
ashamed  of  drawing  the  most  unreasonable  conclusions.*  We 
see  the  same  thing  in  justification ;  it  too  takes  place  only  through 
faith,  and  yet  we  do  not  teach  that  it  takes  place  for  the  sake 
of  faith  as  though  faith  constituted  a  certain  merit.  Therefore, 
the  doctrine  of  Calvinists  is  erroneous,  since  they  declare  that 
election  took  place  absolutely,  without  the  slightest  regard  t^o  the 
faith  of  those  who  were  to  be  elected." 

These  propositions  were  first  assailed  by  a  certain  pastor 
(probably  Mjeuslin),  with  whom  Huber  had  spoken,  stating  to 
him,  and  also  to  several  students,  his  disagreement  with  the 
theses.  When  the  matter  was  discussed  with  Huber  at  a  con- 
vention, he  laid  stress  on  tw'o  points:  1)  Faith  is  no  cause  of 
our  election ;  2)  God's  grace  and  predestination  are  tlie  same 
thing,  and  hence  apply  directly  to  the  whole  human  race.  The 
Acta  Huberiana  report.  Vol.  1.  p.  16:  "On  the  first  point  he  re- 
ceived the  answer,  that  we  too  do  not  regard  faith  as  a  cause  of 
our  election  and  justification  before  God  in  the  sense  that  man 
is  elected  or  justified  propter  cjuam  or  for  the  sake  of  faith.  Nev- 
ertheless, faith  cannot  be  excluded  either  from  our  election  or 
from  our  justification,  since  no  one  is  justified  or  saved  without 
faith,  and  accordingly,  absque  consideratione  fidei,  quatenus  ea 
Christum  apprehendit,  i.  e.  without  faith,  in  so  far  as  it  embraces 
Christ,  no  one  is  chosen  unto  salvation.  In  regard  to  his  sec- 
ond objection  he  was  shown,  that  it  was  certainly  correct  to 
speak  of  God's  universal  decree  unto  salvation,  of  His  counsel 
and  will,  desiring  that  grace  should  be  shown  to  the  entire  human 


*  Gerlach's  doctrine  concerning  the  relation  between  election  and  faith, 
as  here  set  forth,  was  therefore  nothing  new;  it  was  a  well-known  point 
of  controversy  between  Calvinists  and  Lutherans.  Already  in  the  Collo- 
quium at  Moempelgart  Beza  controverted  this  doctrine  as  the  well-known 
and  common  teaching  of  Lutherans,  seeking  to  find  Pelagianism  in  it. 
From  whom  did  Missouri  learn  this  art  of  drawing  unreasonable  con- 
clusions? 


Litroductory  Remarks.  197 

race,  help  and  rescue  provided  from  eternal  destruction,  etc.;  — 
God  has  not  overlooked  a  single  person,  or  excluded  any  one 

from  His  grace Rut  this  detracts  nothing  whatever  from 

the  Electioni  speciali,  i.  e.  from  the  divine  predestination,  which 
pertains  only  to  the  believing  children  of  God.  For  it  was  never 
God's  will  or  determination  to  save  any  one  apart  from  faith  or 
without  faith.  Those  who  see  their  sins  and  place  their  trust 
in  Christ  and  strive  to  live  a  holy  life,  they  (and  none  others)  are 
to  be  regarded  as  God's  chosen  children.  And  accordingly  we 
must  not  only  inquire,  whom  God  would  like  to  save,  and  to 
whom  He  is  ready  to  grant  salvation,  but,  when  we  speak  of 
divine  predestination  according  to  the  Christian  Formula  Con- 
cordise,  we  must  consider,  who  they  are  that  are  saved  according 
to  God's  eternal  counsel,  namely  those  who  embrace  by  faith 
God's  universal  gracious  v.'ill,  and  persevere  unto  the  end."  At 
last  Huber  "declared  himself  satisfied  with  this  statement,  but 
still  considered  it  questionable  to  put  faith  into  the  definition 
or  description  of  God's  predestination.  However,  he  desired 
to  be  excused  if  he  had  been,  or  still  was,  wrong  in  this.  And 
here  the  matter  was  permitted  to  rest  for  the  present."  Soon 
after  this  he  was  called  to  Wittenberg  to  labor  by  the  side  of 
Leyser  and  Hunnius.  Here  again  he  attempted  to  bring  out 
his  confused  ideas,  and  gained  quite  a  following  by  his  writings 
and  travels.  Finally,  however,  it  became  plain  that  he  was  merely 
a  muddled  head,  and  he  lost  ground  completely.  He  died  in 
1624. 

4)  To  aid  in  the  correct  understanding  of  the  testimonies 
which  we  intend  to  quote  from  the  fathers,  it  will  be  well  to 
place  the  three  older  doctrines  concerning  the  relation  of  faith 
to  election,  side  by  side. 

fl)  The  Calvinists  teach,  that  the  elective  decree  of  God 
applies  to  certain  individual  sinners  in  Adam,  according  to  the 
mere  free  pleasure  of  God;  and  that  this  decree  predestinates 
them  at  once  unto  salvation  itself,  and  thereby  also  unto  all  the 
means  necessary  for  its  attainment  (to  which  means  faith  belongs). 

h)  Huber  teaches  that  God  has  chosen  all  men  directly  unto 
salvation  and  unto  faith,  for  God's  universal  love  toward  the 
human  race  is  itself  predestination;  hence  predestination  is  not 
limited  to  God's  believing  children,  nor  dare  it  be  in  any  way 
regarded  as  having  taken  place  only  through  foreseen  faith. 


198  Intuitu  Fidei. 

c)  The  Lutherans  teach,  that  there  is  a  distinction  between 
God's  universal  grace  and  predestination;  for  the  latter  is  sub- 
ordinate to  the  former,  and  (strictly  taken)  consists  of  a  single 
definite  decree  within  the  vmiversal  counsel  of  grace;  i.  e.  the 
decree  which  determines  irrevocably  which  individuals  among 
the  great  mass  of  sinners  are  to  attain  salvation  without  fail. 
This  fixed  and  final  decree  concerning  the  attainment  of  salva- 
tion dare  not  be  confused  with  the  decree  concerning  the  re- 
demption of  the  whole  world,  nor  with  that  concerning  the  call 
to  grace  (Matt.  20,  16),  nor  with  that  concerning  justification 
(since  many  of  the  justified  fall  away).  This  fixed  decree  of 
predestination,  furthermore,  was  not  formed  in  regard  to  sin- 
ners without  faith,  neither  in  regard  to  all,  as  Huber  dreamed,, 
nor  in  regard  to  some,  as  the  Calvinists  dream.  On  the  con- 
trary this  decree  of  salvation  was  formed  in  regard  to  sinners 
foreseen  as  believing  in  Christ;  and  this  in  accordance  with  the 
rule  revealed  clearly  in  the  Gospel  as  God's  eternal  will:  "He 
that  believeth  shall  be  saved,"  and:  "Without  faith  it  is  impos- 
sible to  please  God."  — 

5)  Now  Missouri  has  discovered  an  entirely  original  path 
through  the  midst  of  these  doctrines.  Missouri  accepts  what 
Huber  and  the  Calvinists  teach  over  against  Lutherans  on  the 
question,  whether  faith  (in  God's  foresight)  already  decided  a 
man's  salvation  in  predestination ;  declaring  that  election  did 
not  take  place  through  (foreseen)  faith,  but  unto  faith.  Besides 
this  Missouri  also  teaches  what  Huber  maintained  over  against 
the  Lutherans  and  the  Calvinists,  namely  universal  grace,  re- 
demption, and  vocation.  And  finally,  the  contention  of  the  Cal- 
vinists over  against  Huber  and  the  Lutherans,  that  election  untO' 
salvation  and  unto  all  means  necessary  for  attaining  it,  is  a 
particular  election,  embracing  only  certain  individual  persons, 
according  to  a  secret  purpose  of  God  ■ — •  this  especially  Missouri 
teaches  and  upholds  as  the  palladium  of  its  anti-synergism.  But 
alas,  Missouri  obstinately  denies  and  rejects  the  very  thing  held 
fast  by  the  Lutherans  at  that  time  over  against  Huber  as  well 
as  the  Calvinists,  and  defended  against  their  united  attacks  as 
one  of  the  central  doctrines  of  the  pure  Gospel;  namely  this, 
that  election  unto  salvation  took  place  in  view  of  Christ's  merit 
as  apprehended  by  faith;  or,  which  is  the  same,  in  view  of  faith 
as  apprehending  Christ's  merit.     On  this  point  Missouri  stands 


Introductory  Remarks.  1^9 

decidedly  on  the  side  of  Huber  and  the  Calvinists  and  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  acknowledged  orthodox  Lutherans.  Neither  Hu- 
ber nor  any  of  the  Calvinists  could  have  expressed  the  sentiments 
of  his  heart  more  clearly  than  did  Missouri  when  it  wrote :  "We 
have  come  to  see  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  furnish  the  least 
ground  for  the  assumption  that  foreseen  faith  constituted  a  con- 
dition or  presupposition  in  the  divine  act  of  election.  On  the 
contrary,  by  describing  election  or  predestination  as  a  free  act 
of  God's  will  grounded  in  God,  and  in  Christ  alone,  the  Scrip- 
tures exclude  all  regard  to  man's  conduct"  ("Lehre  und  Wehre," 
1880,  232).  "Predestination  is  the  foundation  and  cause  of  our 
salvation,  and  of  everything  pertaining  thereto.  How  could  this 
be,  if  faith  constituted  the  cause  on  account  of  which  we  are 
chosen?  No;  faith,  indeed,  must  be  present  in  election;  it 
does  not  enter  our  minds  to  say  that  a  man  can  be  saved  without 
faith,  or  that  God  did  not  think  of  faith  in  election.  To  be 
sure.  He  thought  of  faith,  but  only  as  a  means  through  which 
man  is  to  be  saved,  as  something  to  be  given  to  man  and  pre- 
served for  him  on  the  basis  of  election"  (Report  of  the  Western 
District,  1880,  32). 

6.  In  spite  of  this,  Missouri  declares  concerning  the  old 
zealous  defenders  of  the  Intuitu  Fidei;  "We  desire  to  hold  fast, 
and  do  indeed  hold  fast,  the  doctrine  of  Luther  and  Chemnitz  con- 
cerning predestination,  as  expressed  in  the  Formula  of  Concord." 
(We  assuredly  believe  this,  but  —  how  can  Missouri  really  be- 
lieve it?)  "We  by  no  means  wish  to  accuse  the  later  dogmatic- 
ians  of  teaching  a  false  doctrine  of  predestination"  ("L.  and  W.," 
1880,  68).  "They  by  no  means  attempted  to  correct  in  any  way 
the  pure,  biblical,  and  symbolical  doctrine  of  predestination,  by 
employing  the  questionable  term  'intuitu  fidei.'  On  the  contrar)^ 
they  held  fast  to  this  doctrine  none  the  less  with  all  earnestness" 
(p.  98).  This  is  what  Missouri  declares  repeatedly  on  the  one 
hand. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  Missouri  is  not  deterred  by 
these  testimonials  in  favor  of  our  fathers  from  declaring  the  fol- 
lowing in  its  ofificial  organ: 

"It  admits  o>i  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  dogmaticians  of 
the  17th  century  in  some  way  made  election  depend  on  faith, 
although  they  dififer  greatly  in  defining  the  manner  of  this  de- 
pendence. Whenever  they  set  up  the  intuitu  fidei  as  a  shib- 
boleth;  whenever  they  take  the  expression,  that  God  has  chosen 


200  Intuitu  Fidei. 

those  wliose  faith  He  foresaw,  in  the  same  sense;  whenever  they 
revert  to  the  so-called  Syllogismus  prgedestinatoriiis*.  according 
to  which  election  follows  logically  from  God's  gracious  will  and 
from  His  foreknowledge  of  faith:  then  they  state  the  depend- 
ence of  election  upon  faith.  They  attempt  to  explain,  in  a  man- 
ner at  least,  this  wonderful  mystery  of  the  discretio  personarum 
(the  separation  of  persons),  and  to  make  it  plausible  to  reason. 
xA-ud  herein  they  have  erred  and  have  deviated  from  the  Script- 
ures and  the  Confession.  Herein  we  do  nol  agree  with  them" 
("L.  and  W.,"  1882,  158). 

Should  some  one  feel  bold  enough  to  put  the  modest  ciues- 
tion,  iiow  such  contradictory  statements  can  be  reconciled,  he 
would  be  served  with  the  answer:  Thou  must  simply  believe 
both ! 

7)  At  the  meeting  of  the  Synodical  Conference  in  Chicago 
the  doctrinal  standpoint  of  the  fathers,  as  the  Report  shows,  came 
up  repeatedly  for  discussion.  The  Norwegian  "brethren"  espe- 
cially exerted  themselves  to  the  utmost  in  trying  to  induce  the 
Conference  to  declare  that  "the  old  teachers  of  our  Church" 
did  not  harbor  false  doctrine  in  employing  the  expression  "in 
view  of  faith."  But  the  Conference  did  not  venture,  either  to 
acknowledge  as  correct  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  "in  view 
of  faith,"  nor  to  reject  this  doctrine  as  an  antiscriptural  error 
of  the  fathers.  A  little  back  door  was  found,  and  with  nimble 
dexterity  the  uncomfortable  task  was  avoided.  Afterwards  Dr. 
Walther  remarked  in  "L.  and  W.",  that  the  attempt  to  move  the 
Synodical  Conference  to  declare  itself  with  reference  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  fathers,  was  a  "trap,"  into  which  the  Conference,  "by 
the  grace  of  God,"  did  not  permit  itself  to  be  decoyed.  Indeed, 
a  very  vexatious  trap!  This  is  how  Missouri  plays  its  dishonor- 
able game,  and  in  this  regard  leaves  even  the  Crypto-Calvinists 
far  behind. 

8)  We  now  proceed  to  quote  quite  a  complete  selection  of 
utterances  from  acknowledged  orthodox  publications  and  teach- 
ers on  the  doctrine  known  throughout  the  Lutheran  Church  as 


*  I.  e.  the  three  parts  of  the  decree  of  election:  1.  (Purpose)  All  those 
who  accept  Christ  in  faith  shall  be  received  unto  the  adoption  and  inherit- 
ance of  eternal  life;  2.  (Foresight)  This  man  and  that  man  and  the  other 
— •  David,  Paul,  Luther,  etc.  —  do  accept  Christ  in  faith;  3.  (Conclusion 
in  the  election)  These,  therefore,  shall  be  chosen,  etc. 


Introductory  Remarks.  201 

"Election  in  View  of  F"aith."  In  some  of  these  quotations  the 
doctrine  is  briefly  stated  and  characterized,  in  others  it  is  fully 
explained  and  defended  against  misunderstandings  and  malicious 
misrepresentations.  We  turn  especially  to  writings  belonging 
to  the  time  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  coming  from  men 
who  either  helped  compose  the  Confession  (Chytrgsus,  Selnecker, 
Chemnitz,  x^ndrese),  or  were  its  original  subscribers  (Leyser,  My- 
lius,  Backmeister,  Heerbrand,  Magirus,  Biedenbach,  Binder, 
Holder,  and  others)  or  were  known  as  its  efficient  promulgators 
and  defenders  (Hunnius*). 

If  the  doctrine  of  election  in  view  not  merely  of  Christ's 
merit  as  obtained  for  us,  but  of  this  merit  as  apprehended  by 
faith,  really  involved  a  defection  from  the  pure  Confession;  if 
this  doctrine  had  really  been  branded  and  rejected  by  the  Epi- 
tomef  as  "a  blasphemous  and  dreadful  false  doctrine"  —  then  it 
is  altogether  incredible,  that  a  universal  storm  of  indignation  was 
not  raised  by  the  original  subscribers  (of  whom  thousands  were 
then  still  living,  12-20  years  after  the  promulgation  of  the  For- 
mula) against  these  Pelagianizing  innovators;  and  that  they  did 
not  at  once  proceed  to  establish  the  true  and  original  sense  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord  and  maintain  it  victoriously  over  against 
the  deserters! 


*  ^gidius  Hunnius  became  professor  at  Marburg  in  1576.  He  at- 
tended the  general  synod  at  Kassel,  which  assembled  from  the  24th  of 
August  till  the  4th  of  September  of  the  same  year.  The  subject  before 
the  synod  was  the  adoption  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  then  still  called 
"The  Book  of  Torgau,"  and  Hunnius  proved  himself  to  be  the  "readiest 
and  most  powerful  champion  of  the  Concordia"  (Heppe). 

t  Where  it  declares  that  the  assertion,  that  not  only  the  mercy  of  God 
and  the  most  holy  merit  of  Christ,  but  also  in  us  is  a  cause  of  God's  elec- 
tion —  meaning,  of  course,  an  independent,  co-ordinate,  third  cause  — 
^'should  not  be  tolerated  in  the  Church  of  God." 


A.     AUTHORS  OF  THE  FORMULA  OF  CONCORD.* 


David  Chytrgeus  writes  in  his  Commentary  on  Rev.,  p.  373: 
"The  norm  and  rule  of  the  last  judgment  will  be  simple,  easily 
comprehended,  certain,  and  irreversible.  The  book  of  life,  the 
decisive  sentence  of  judgTuent,  which  refers  to  all  mankind  in  the 
same  way,  without  any  respect  of  persons,  is  clearly  expressed  in 
the  words:  'God  so  loved  the  world,  that  He  gave  His  only  be- 
gotten Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish, 
but  have  everlasting  life.  He  that  believeth  on  Him  is  not  con- 
demned; but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already.'  All 
those,  then,  not  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life  will,  without 
distinction,  be  cast  as  accursed  into  the  eternal  fire,  as  the  end  of 
this  book  declares.  And  at  the  close  of  the  21st  chapter  he  adds 
that  no  one  can  be  a  citizen  of  the  holy  Jerusalem,,  or  of  the 
heavenly  Church,  who  b.as  not  been  inscribed  in  tlie  Lan^b's  book 
of  life.  But  in  this  book  of  life  are  inscribed,  i.  e.  elected  to  eternal 
life,  all  men  who  believe  in  Christ,  the  Lamb  of  God  that  bears 
the  sins  of  the  world,  the  Giver  of  life  eternal,  and  who  persevere 
in  this  faith  till  the  end.  During  life  this  faith  shows  itself  in 
works  of  mercy  or  good  deeds  towards  our  fellow  men,  or  in  all 
the  duties  of  love  toward  God  and  our  fellow  men,  and  shines 
before  men.  Therefore,  those  who  are  inscribed  in  the  book  of 
life  are  called.  Matt.  25,  34,  'the  blessed  of  the  Father,'  who  shall 
inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  them  from  the  foundation  of 


*  Translator's  Note.  —  In  the  text  of  the  Intuitu  Fidei  only  brief  quo- 
tations are  made  from  the  authors  of  the  F.  C.  A  note  refers  us  to  "Altes 
und  Neues,"  No.  14  and  the  following,  of  1882  (meaning,  however,  1881), 
where  the  authors  of  the  F.  C.  are  quoted  at  full  length.  Instead  of  the 
abbreviated  extracts  given  in  the  Intuitu  Fidei  itself  we  therefore  insert 
"the  testimonies"  as  given  in  full  in  1881.  A  translation  of  these  fuller  ex- 
tracts was  printed  in  the  '"Columbus  Theological  Magazine"  for  1882, 
under  the  heading:  "Some  Testimonies  of  the  Authors  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  in  Regard  to  Election";  but  the  original  has  here  been  re- 
translated almost  throughout.  The  "Magazine"  omitted  the  appended 
notes  entirely;  they  are  here  introduced.  A  few  important  notes  are 
found  appended  to  the  briefer  extracts  in  the  Intuitu  Fidei  proper;  these 
also  are  added  and  inserted  where  they  belong. 


Authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  2S)'6 

the  world.  For  all  the  nations  shall  be  blessed,  that  is,  they  are 
delivered  from  sin  and  death,  they  obtain  the  inheritance  of  the 
heavenly  kingdom  and  righteousness  and  eternal  life,  solely  and 
alone  for  the  sake  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  as  apprehended  by 
faith.  Gal.  ?>.  And  Eph.  1,  3-4,  we  read:  'God  hath  blessed  us 
with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ;  accord- 
ing as  He  hath  chosen  us  in  Him  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world.'  Therefore  Paul  says,  Rom.  6,  23;  'The  gift  of  God  is 
eternal  life,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.'  AndEph.  2,  8:  'By 
grace  ye  are  saved  through  faith;  and  that  not  of  yourselves;  it 
is  the  gift  of  God,  lest  any  man  should  boast.'  " 

II. 

On  Rev.  13,  8,  the  same  Chytraeus  writes:  "Although  the 
multitude  of  those  who  without  scruple  worship  idols  is  great 
and  vast,  and  although  even  in  the  mass  composing  the  Chris- 
tian Church  the  majority,  either  charmed  by  the  power  and  con- 
quests of  the  beast,  or  overcome  by  fear,  fall  away  from  the  true 
God  and  worship  the  beast,  nevertheless  God  at  all  times  preserves 
among  the  human  race  a  holy  seed,  or  a  church  of  those  elected 
to  eternal  life.  These  are  they  who  are  inscribed  in  the  Lamia's 
book  of  life;  i.  e.  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  of  pure  grace 
on  account  of  His  Son  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  our  Savior  and  the 
Lamb  that  was  slain  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  these  have  been 
called  and  elected  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  unto  eternal 
life,  that  they  might  to  all  eternity  rejoice  in  the  wisdom,  justice, 
life,  and  salvation  of  God,  and  thus  praise  and  glorify  God.  Now 
the  figure  contained  in  this  expression  (whose  names  are  in- 
scribed in  the  book  of  life)  is  taken  from  the  usual  custom  of  cities 
and  corporations  that  have  certain  books  in  which  the  names  of 
the  citizens  are  kept  on  record.  But  here  we  must  not  imagine 
that  God  has  Stoic  tablets*  or  tablets  of  the  Fates, f  on  which  the 
names  of  certain  persons  are  enrolled  who  of  absolute  necessity 
must  be  saved,  whether  they  hear  or  despise  the  Word  of  God, 
whether  they  believe  in  Christ,  the  Lamb  slain  for  our  sins,  or 


*  The  Stoics  were  disciples  of  the  Greek  philosopher  Zeno  and  taught 
that  all  things  take  place  absolutely  of  necessity,  and  that  complete  indif- 
ference is  therefore  the  highest  wisdom  and  virtue. 

t  The  Fates  were  three  Greek  goddesses,  who  allotted  to  each  man 
his  destiny;    everything  finally  depended  on  their  decisions. 


204  Intuitu  Fidei. 

not;  and  in  like  manner  the  names  of  others  who  of  necessity 
must  be  condemned.  On  the  contrary,  we  must  remember  that 
we  are  to  draw  our  conclusions  concerning'  election  and  predes- 
tination from  nothing  save  the  Word  of  God,  who  is  true  and 
just,  disposed  alike  toward  all,  and  in  whom  there  is  no  respect 
of  persons;  and  also  from  the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  which  is 
universal  and  offered  gratuitously.  Thus  then  are  written  in  the 
book  of  life,  or  elected  by  God  to  eternal  life,  all  men  who  believe 
in  Christ,  the  Lamb  of  God  that  bears  the  sins  of  the  world,  and 
who  persevere  in  faith  to  their  last  breath.  As  we  read  in  John 
6,  40:  'This  is  the  will  of  the  Father,  that  every  one  which  seeth 
the  Son,  and  believeth  on  Him,  may  have  everlasting  life.'  And 
John  1,  12:  'As  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  He  gave  power 
to  become  the  sons  of  God.'  Rev.  2,  10:  'Be  thou  faithful  unto 
death,  and  I  will  give  thee  a  crown  of  life.'*  Eph.  1,  4:  'He 
hath  chosen  us  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.'  1 
Peter  1,  20:  'Ye  are  redeemed  with  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ,  as  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot;  who  verily 
was  foreordained  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.' '" 

HI. 

In  his  exposition  of  the  Catechism  Chytrgeus  writes,  p.  84: 
"Predestination  is  the  eternal  decree  of  the  will  (mentis)  of  God, 
by  which,  of  free  grace  and  mercy  on  account  of  His  Son,  He 
has  selected  an  eternal  church,  that  is,  persons  who  are  pleasing 
to  Him,  and  are  heirs  of  eternal  life.  The  members  of  this  church 
are  all  those  individuals  who  receive  the  Gospel  of  Christ  in  faith 
and  persevere  in  this  faith  to  the  end  of  life,  according  to  the 
words:  'Blessed  are  they  who  die  in  the  Lord.'  'Be  thou  faith- 
ful unto  death,  and  I  will  give  thee  the  crown  of  life.' " 

IV. 

When  the  Huber  controversy  broke  out,  and  the  Wittenberg 
and  Wuertemberg  theologians  referred  election  only  to  believers 
as  such,  and  Huber  taught  that  all  men  were  chosen,  the  aged 
Chytrseus  also,  the  only  surviving  co-author  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  was  forced  to   raise  his   weighty  voice.     He   decided 


*  Cf.  Rev.  3.  5:  "He  that  overcometh,  the  same  shall  be  clothed  in 
white  raiment;  and  I  will  not  blot  out  his  name  out  of  the  book  of  life, 
but  I  will  confess  his  name  before  my  Father,  and  before  His  angels.'' 


Authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  '205 

against  Huber,  and  for  his  opponents;  therefore,  too,  Hunnius 
afterwards  (but  still  during  the  lifetime  of  Chytrgeus)  emphatic- 
ally appealed  to  the  fact  that  this  Rostock  prince  of  theologians 
had  read  and  approved  of  his  writings  on  predestination.  If 
Chemnitz  had  already  before  this  time  refused  to  call  predesti- 
nation particular,  without  further  explaining  the  term,  "because 
this  might  be  understood  to  mean  that  God's  intention  had  not 
been  to  save  all  men,"  in  the  case  of  Chytrseus  it  comes  out  even 
more  clearly  and  distinctly  what  was  the  sense  of  the  authors  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord  when,  in  treating  of  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion, they  took  their  stand  with  such  immovable  firmness  on  the 
universal  promises  of  the  Gospel.  For,  if  among  the  acts  of 
grace  on  the  part  of  God  for  the  welfare  of  men,  at  least  election 
to  salvation  were  simply  particular,  then  the  entire  gracious  will 
of  God  to  save  sinners  would,  in  its  innermost  essence,  be  like- 
wise particular;  for  whomsoever  God  did  not  will  to  elect,  him 
also  He  did  not  will  to  save.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  gra- 
cious will  to  save  sinners  is  universal,  and  if  this  universality  is 
real,  then  God  on  His  part  must  have  desired  to  save  all.  Ac- 
cordingly, Chytrseus  and  his  Rostock  colleagues  write  to  the  .Wit- 
tenberg theologians,  under  date  of  July  4,  1595,  as  follows:  "In 
regard  to  the  use  of  the  expression  'universal  election,'  we  re- 
peat what  we  have  said:  If  it  will  not  do  to  call  the  will  of  God 
in  Christ,  according  to  which  He  earnestly  desires  the  salvation 
of  man,  a  universal  predestination,  it  is  certainly  improper  to  raise 
a  great  controversy  merely  about  the  words,  as  long  as  what  is 
really  necessary,  the  wholesome,  comforting  doctrine,  is  held  fast. 
As  long  as  there  is  agreement  in  the  thing  itself,  we  should  be 
ready  to  yield  as  regards  the  use  of  terms.  Now  we  do  not  doubt 
but  what  there  is  devout  agreement  between  us  in  this  entire 
chapter  concerning  predestination.  Therefore  both  sides  may 
retain  the  term  universal  election;  meaning,  of  course,  that  the 
foreordination  of  those  who  are  to  be  saved  (which  is  the  point 
of  controversy,  and  of  which  the  Formula  of  Concord  treats)  is 
really  and  truly  universal  as  regards  all  individuals,  Jews  or  Gen- 
tiles, who  have  learned  to  know  the  Son  of  God  and  Savior  of  the 
world  in  faith,  and  remain  therein  till  the  end  of  life.  In  the 
same  way  the  righteousness  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus  is 
universal  for  all  and  over  all  that  believe.  For  there  is  here  no 
difference,  Rom.  3.  Those,  however,  who  will  not  believe  remain 
under  the  judgment  and  wrath  of  God  to  eternity.     Therefore,. 


206  Intuitu  Fidei. 

too,  they  are  not  called  elect  but  reprobate."  In  the  same  letter 
we  read  furthermore:  "The  merciful  will  of  God,  burning  in 
love  for  the  whole  human  race,  desires  that  all  men  shall  be  chosen 
in  Christ,  justified,  and  saved,  and  this  through  faith  in  Christ. 
But  since  all  do  not  believe,  God  does  not  regard  all  alike  as 
chosen,  nor  grant  righteousness  and  eternal  life  to  them  in  Christ; 
although  He  desired  concerning  them  all  that  they  should  have 
been  elected  and  saved,  if  they  had  believed  (quos  tamen  omnes 
voluisset  eligi  et  salvari,  si  credidissent).  We  have  told  Huber 
several  times,  and  repeated  it  during  our  last  conversation,  when 
he  took  leave  of  us,  that  the  real  and  complete  definition  of  elec- 
tion, according  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Book  of  Concord, 
embraces  not  only  the  merciful  will  of  (iod  or  the  merits  of  Christ 
and  the  universal  promises  of  the  Gospel,  but  also  true  and  con- 
stant faith  in  this  mercy  of  God  and  in  Christ,  the  Mediator  and 
Redeemer  of  the  whole  human  race,  because  Christ  without  faith 
avails  nothing,  and  all  the  promises  of  God  explicitly  demand 
faith." 

V. 

Dr.  Jacob  Andreae  is,  besides  Chemnitz,  one  of  the  main 
authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  He  was  far  more  active 
than  even  Chemnitz  himself  in  bringing  matters  so  far  that  the 
Formula  was  produced.  In  the  year  1574  he  published  a  disputa- 
tion on  predestination  in  which  thesis  10  reads  as  follows:  "Pre- 
destination and  election  by  grace  is  the  eternal  decree  of  God, 
declaring  that  He  will  save  those  persons  who  are  penitent  and 
believe  in  Christ,  the  Savior  and  only  Redeemer  of  the  world." 
Thesis  172:  "It  is  God's  immutable  will  that  all  should  believe 
in  the  Gospel,  and  that  those  who  believe  shall  be  saved,"  Mark 
16.  Th.  173:  "As  it  is  likewise  His  immutable  will,  that  those 
who  do  not  believe  shall  be  damned."  Th.  174:  "Nor  does  the 
universality  of  the  promises  of  the  Gospel  contradict  the  particu- 
larity of  election"  (i.  e.  by  the  fact,  that  election  is  restricted  to  a 
few,  or  that  only  a  few  are  chosen).  Thesis  175:  "For  God  has 
not  promised  salvation  to  all  promiscuously,  but  only  to  those 
who  believe."  Thesis  176:  "Hence  the  particular  election  is 
included  in  the  universal  promise."*     Moreover  in  this  disputa- 


*  Well,  well,  Andrese,  what  are  you  teaching  here?  Are  you,  the 
actual  author  of  the  F.  C,  still  really  in  such  lamentable  ignorance  re- 
garding the  very  first  letter  of  the  pure  doctrine  of  predestination,  which 


Authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  207 

tion  of  1574  Andrese  opposes  an  unconditional  election  in  the 
following  words:  "Whoever  seeks  predestination  in  an  absolute 
decree  of  God,  because  God's  foreknowledge  is  absolutely  certain, 
leads  men  to  think  that  such  a  decree  necessarily  brings  about  the 
salvation  of  certain  persons  who  under  no  circumstances  can  be 
condemned,  while  it  likewise  effects  the  damnation  of  others  so 
that  they  cannot  be  saved.  The  result  of  this  is  that  believers, 
becoming  perplexed  when  considering  this  divine  foreknowledge, 
cannot  be  cheered  by  consolation;  men  of  Epicurean  mind,  how- 
ever, thereby  open  for  themselves  and  others  the  door  for  trans- 
gression; because  the  hidden  will  of  God  has  decided  every- 
thing, all  our  efforts  avail  nothing.  .  .  .  The  reason  why 
all  are  not  saved  is  this,  that  they  spurn  the  divine  grace,  which 
God  offers  to  all  in  Christ.  The  fact,  that  this  grace  cannot  be 
accepted  by  our  own  reason  or  strength,  does  not  overthrow  our 
proposition.  All  indeed  are  to  hear,  and  by  hearing  are  to  come 
to  faith.  Whoever  despises  preaching,  must  accuse  himself,  and 
not  a  hidden  decree  of  God,  just  as  his  conscience  accuses  only 
himself.  The  doctrine  of  an  obsolute  decree  also  renders  the 
work  of  the  Word  and  the  Sacrament  useless.  Reprobation  by 
an  absolute  will,  without  the  foresight  of  unbelief,  is  blasphemous. 
Whoever  hears  the  Word,  which  he  indeed  cannot  believe  bv  his 
own  powers,  to  him  the  Holy  Spirit  is  promised,  and  He  works 
that  all  who  hear  may  also  believe.     This  coming  to  hear  preach- 


consists  of  the  very  opposite  of  what  you  teach  in  these  propositions? 
Don't  you  know  that  predestination  and  the  universal  gracious  will  of 
God  are  two  entirely  different  "sides"  of  God's  will,  which  neither  reason 
nor  the  light  of  grace  is  able  to  harmonize  with  each  other?  Let  me  tell 
you,  my  dear  Andreae,  you  should  have  remained  at  home  with  your  wis- 
dom, which  betrays  a  "rationalizing  tendency";  you  had  better  remain 
silent  as  long  as  you  have  no  clearer  light  on  the  a  b  c  of  the  pure  doc- 
trine of  predestination.  See,  "it  is  impossible  for  us  to  mediate  between, 
or  to  harmonize  with  our  reason,  these  two  scriptural  doctrines  concern- 
ing particular  election  and  concerning  universal  grace.  Not  even  the 
light  of  grace  is  able  to  remove  this  discord,  we  mtist  wait  for  the  light 
of  glory"  ("L.  u.  W.",  1880,  308).  How  then  could  you  write  such  non- 
sense as  this:  "The  universality  of  the  promises  does  not  contradict  the 
partictilarity  of  election;  for  God  has  not  promised  salvation  to  all  pro- 
miscuously, but  only  to  those  who  believe;  hence  the  particular  election 
is  included  in  the  universal  promise."  Why,  the  thing  is  just  the  reverse! 
Election  is  "an  altogether  different  thing"  from  this  universal  promise. 
And  therefore  the  particularity  of  election  contradicts  the  universality  of 
the  promise,  and  we  cannot  solve  the  contradiction,  and  you  dare  not. 


208  Intuitu  Fidei. 

ing,  this  willing-  and  hearing,  God  demands  as  a  piece  of  out- 
ward obedience,  a  leading,  as  it  were  by  the  hand,  unto  Christ, 
although  in  itself  it  does  not  effect  conversion.  But  this  man 
can  do.  hear  the  Word  which  is  the  organ  of  the  Spirit,  or  stop 
his  ears ;  but  man  has  not  the  least  measure  of  power  for  assent, 
as  Erasmus  claimed,  assent  is  altogether  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

VI. 

Twelve  years  later  and  six  years  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  Jacob  Andrese  issued  what  was  probably 
his  last  discourse  or  treatise  on  the  doctrine  of  predestination. 
In  this  are  found  the  following  theses:  5.  "The  Word  of  God 
teaches  us  concerning  God  as  far  as  He  is  revealed  to  us,  that 
He  has  formed  no  absolute  decree  concerning  the  human  race, 
either  with  reference  to  salvation  or  to  condemnation;  but  that 
in  Christ  Jesus  are  chosen  as  many  as  believe  in  Him,  and  that 
as  many  as  do  not  believe  are  rejected."  18.  "That,  however,  the 
call  is  said  to  be  universal,  while  election  is  particular,  is  because 
the  decree  of  God  with  reference  to  those  who  are  to  be  saved  is 
not  absolute  (unconditional),  but  has  its  restrictions."  10.  "For 
since  we  are  elected  in  Christ,  this  expression  'in  Christ'  is  taken 
to  embrace  all  the  instruments  and  means  necessary  to  come  to 
a  knowledge  of  Him,  which  by  synecdoche  we  comprehend  in 
the  term  faith."  20.  "It  must  therefore  be  said,  according  to 
the  revealed  Word,  and  according  to  God  as  revealed  therein,  that 


as  you  venture  to  do.  harmonize  the  two  by  referring  to  passages  like 
these:  "He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved,"  or  :  "Without  faith  it  is  im- 
possible to  please  God."  I  am  very  much  afraid,  my  dear  Andrese,  that 
you  agree  with  the  later  dogmaticians  who  make  "election  depend  on 
faith",  altliough  I  know,  of  course,  that  you  are  the  chief  author  of  the 
F.  C.  and  that  you  ought  to  know  how  it  is  to  be  understood.  Certainly 
we  respect  your  Lutheranism  otherwise:  but  when  you  include  the  par- 
ticularity of  election  in  the  universal  promise  ("He  that  believeth  shall 
be  saved"),  understanding  the  former  by  the  latter,  when  thus  you  attempt 
"to  explain  somewhat  and  make  plausible  to  our  reason'"  (!  !)  "this  won- 
derful mystery  of  election"  by  mixing  in  foreseen  faith,  then,  we  are  sorry 
to  say,  you  too  have  "forsaken  the  Scriptures  and  the  Symbol"  and  gone 
of¥  on  the  wrong  track  of  Pelagianism.  Still  one  thing  serves  to  excuse 
you  somewliat:  your  co-workers  on  the  Formula,  as  the  extracts  from 
Selnecker  and  Chytr;eus  show,  were  likewise  not  quite  straight  on  this 
subject,  and,  to  put  it  as  mildly  as  possible,  badly  misunderstood  their 
dear  F.  C.  in  this  a  b  c  point  of  the  pure  doctrine  of  election!  Sapienti 
sat.      [Note  from  the  I.  F.  proper.  —  Translator.] 


Aidhors  of  the  Formtila  of  Concord.  209 

the  selection  of  persons  has  taken  place  in  this  manner,  that  who- 
soever will  believe  in  Christ  and  receive  Him  as  his  own  Savior, 
shall  not  doubt  that  he  has  assuredly  been  foreordained  and 
elected  unto  eternal  life."  21.  "On  the  other  hand,  whoever 
will  not  believe,  but  persists  in  neglecting  and  stubbornly  despis- 
ing the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  is  to  know  of  a  surety  that  he 
is  in  no  way  foreordained  or  elected  to  eternal  life;  and  this  ac- 
cording to  the  words  of  Christ :  'Whosoever  will  not  believe  shall 
be  damned.' "  31.  "Just  as  election  presupposes  the  merit  of 
Christ  and  a  knowledge  of  Him  by  true  faith,  go  the  decree  of 
condemnation  presupposes  unbelief  and  rejection  of  Christ."* 
90.  "The  unalterable  and  eternal  truth  therefore  remains:  As 
those  who  through  faith  are  justified  and  saved  have  been  elected 
in  Christ  to  eternal  life,  so  no  one  has  been  created,  ordained, 
or  destined  to  eternal  damnation  by  a  secret  and  absolute  decree 
of  God;  the  damned  perish  eternally  because  of  their  unbelief." 

vn. 

In  the  year  1586  the  Colloqium  at  Moempelgart  took  place. 
The  main  debator  on  the  Reformed  side  was  Theodore  Beza, 
on  the  Lutheran  Jacob  Andreae.  Among  the  sentences  which 
Andrege  and  L.  Osiander,  over  their  own  signatures,  rejected  as 
"entirely  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,"  we  find  the  following: 
"The  cause  of  the  decree  of  election  is  the  eternal  loving  kind- 
ness of  God,  inasmuch  as  He  foreordained  to  salvation  whom  He 
wished;  the  cause  of  the  decree  of  reprobation  is  God's  eternal 
hatred  of  evil,  inasmuch  as  He  ordained  to  just  condemnation 
whom  He  wished;  the  reason  for  His  ordaining  these  to  salvation 
and  those  to  condemnation  is  merely  His  own  will."  Among 
the  sentences  given  by  Andreje  as  remarks  against  Beza's 
theses,     some    very     important     expressions     occur.     For     ex- 


*  "Sicut  electio  praesupponit  Christi  meritum  et  ejusdem  agnitionem 
per  veram  fidem,  sic  condemnationis  decretum  praesupponit  incrediilita- 
tem  et  contemptum  Christi."  —  Andrese,  the  principal  author  of  the  F.  C. 
tells  us:  "Election  presupposes  the  merit  of  Christ  and  a  knowledge  of 
Him  by  true  faith,"  i.  e.  foreseen  faith  is  presupposed  in  the  act  of  elec- 
tion. Missouri  tells  us:  "The  Scriptures  do  not  furnish  the  slighest 
ground  for  the  assumption  that  foreseen  faith  was  presupposed  in  the 
divine  act  of  election."  And  surely  Missouri  understands  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Symbol  better  than  the  author  of  the  Formula  of  Concord!  [Note 
from  the  I.  F.  proper.  —  Tr.] 


210  Intuitu  Fidei. 

ample,  Beza  had  written  that  "it  is  not  only  very  silly,  but 
even  blasphemons.  to  think  that,  if  God  wishes  to  save 
every  single  individual,  He  should  not  be  able  to  accomplish 
what  He  wishes;  to  think  that  the  effect  of  the  divine  will  depends 
on  the  decision  of  man."  Andrese  answered:  "God  does  not 
desire  according  to  His  absolute  will  that  all  men  should  be  saved, 
for  in  that  case  all  men  would  necessarily  be  saved,  for  who  can 
resist  His  will?  But  He  wishes  it  according  to  a  restricted  will 
in  Christ,  outside  of  whom  He  saves  no  one.  Him  (Christ)  He 
offers  to  all  men  through  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  the  use 
of  the  Sacraments.  He  who  resists  is  lost,  not  through  God's 
will,  but  through  his  own  wickedness,  contrary  to  the  will  of  God." 
Touching  the  expression  of  Beza,  that  "the  grace  of  conversion 
belongs  exclusively  to  the  elect,"  Andreae  remarks:  "Election 
is  not  limited  by  an  absolute  decree,  its  limit  is  in  Christ  who 
calls  all  men  to  repentance.  Therefore,  no  one  should  exclude 
himself  from  the  number  of  the  elect,  but  we  should  say  with  Au- 
gustine: 'If  you  have  not  been  foreordained,  do  your  part  that 
you  may  be  foreordained  (Si  non  es  praedestinatus,  fac  ut  prae- 
destineris).' "  Beza  maintained  this  proposition:  "It  is  just  as 
false  to  say  that  unbelief  is  a  cause  of  the  divine  decree  to  con- 
demn some  justly,  as  it  is  false  to  say  that  foreseen  faith  or  good 
works  are  a  cause  of  the  foreordination  of  the  elect,  which  is  Pela- 
gian doctrine."  Andrese  answered:  "It  is  terrible  to  hear  Beza 
daring  to  deny  that  unbelief  is  the  cause  of  the  divine  decree  con- 
demning certain  persons.  Christ  expressly  declares:  'Whoso- 
ever does  not  believe  is  condemned  already.'  Furthermore: 
'The  Holy  Spirit  will  judge  the  world  on  account  of  sin,  because 
they  did  not  believe  in  me.'  Furthermore :  'Whosoever  does  not 
believe  shall  be  damned.'  .  .  .  Faith  in  Christ  is  not  the 
work  of  nature,  or  of  human  abilities,  but  a  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Hence  when  we  say  that  faith  is  a  cause  of  election,  there 
is  nothing  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Pelagians  in  the  assertion;  they 
ascribe  to  man's  natural  powers  what  is  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  alone."* 


*  "Fides  in  Christum  non  est  naturae,  aut  nostrarum  humanarum 
virium,  sed  Spiritus  Sancti  opus.  Cum  ergo  fides  causa  Electionis  esse 
dicitur,  nequaquam  Pelagianorum  dogma  sapit,  qui  naturae  viribus  tri- 
buerunt,  quod  solus  Spiritus  Sanctus  praestare  potest."  The  old  German 
translation  has  the  sentence  as  follows:  "Darum  wann  wir"  (Lutherans) 
"lehren,  dass  der  Glaube  an  Christum  die  Ursache  der  ewigen  Wahl  Got- 


AutJiors  of  the  Fonmila  of  Concord.  211 

VIII. 

Christopher  Koerner  writes  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans, 
8,  29:  "The  first  step  in  God's  acts  for  the  glorification  of  His 
children  is  the  foreknowledge  of  God ;  for  He  has  foreknown  from 
eternity  and  perceived  accurately  those  who  were  to  be  saved.* 
The  second  step  is  predestination,  since  God  has  for  Himself  fore- 
ordained, determined,  and  decided  to  whom  He  would  grant  sal- 
vation, and  has  electel  only  these  out  of  the  whole  human  race. 
The  third  step  is  the  calling,  as  Paul  says:  "Whom  He  hath 
called."  For  in  their  time  the  elect  are  called  through  the  Word 
and  Sacraments,  and  invited  to  obtain  the  blessings  in  store  for 
them.  The  fourth  step  is  justification,  for  whom  He  hath  called 
He  also  justifies.  These,  if  they  believe  in  His  Son,  He  receives 
in  mercy,  having  forgiven  their  sins  for  the  sake  of  the  Mediator. 
Finally  the  fifth  step  follows,  which  is  glorification." 

IX. 

Martin  Chemnitz,  to  whom  our  opponents  appeal  as  one  of 
the  main  supports  of  their  strange  doctrine  of  predestination,  re- 
peatedly draws  attention  to  the  fact,  that  the  gracious  decree 
of  election  has  essentially  the  same  import  as  the  counsel  of  sal- 
vation and  all  that  belongs  to  this  counsel  and  flows  from  it  and 
depends  on  it.  Our  opponents  tear  asunder  the  counsel  of  sal- 
vation as  something  universal,  and  the  decree  of  election  as  a 
decree  of  salvation  referring  merely  to  the  elect,  to  the  exclusion 


tes  zur  Kindschaft  sei,  ist  es  keineswegs  der  pelagianischen  Ketzerei  ver- 
wandt,"  etc.  Thus  one  of  the  co-authors  of  the  F.  C.  could  express  him- 
self as  a  representative  of  Lutheran  doctrine  —  six  years  after  the  adop- 
tion of  the  F.  C. !  —  and  the  report  of  these  discussions  was  circulated  far 
and  wide  (in  Latin  and  in  German),  and  no  man  was  found  to  accuse  them 
of  heterodoxy!  ! 

*  "Primus  Gradus  actionum  Dei  ad  glorificandum  suos,  est  Praesci- 
entia  Dei:  is  enim  ab  aeternos  praescivit  et  cognitus  habuit,  qui  essent 
salvandi."  As  God's  "determining  to  whom  He  would  grant  salvation" 
is,  according  to  Koerner,  the  second  step,  this  decree  regarding  those 
who  are  to  be  saved  cannot  be  contained  already  in  the  first  step,  other- 
wise the  two  would  contain  one  and  the  same  thing.  Moreover,  Koerner 
distinguishes  plainly  between  God's  foreknowledge  and  God's  decree,  mak- 
ing the  latter  follow  the  former.  First  comes  foreknowledge,  then  fore- 
ordination  respecting  those  to  be  saved. 


212  Intuitu  Fidei. 

of  the  others.  Chemnitz,  however,  wherever  he  touches  this 
topic,  sees  in  the  plan  of  salvation  at  the  same  time  also  the  plan 
of  election  as  its  real  crown  and  summit.  Chemnitz  knows  noth- 
ing of  two  distinct  plans  running  parallel  to  each  other  while 
contradicting  one  another.  When,  therefore,  he  discusses  this 
main  topic,  that  God,  in  mercy  alone,  and  without  being  moved 
by  "any  cause  in  us,"  formed  His  gracious  counsel  for  our 
salvation,  he  refers  this  to  the  entire  plan  of  salvation  as  it  ex- 
tends over  all  the  lost  and  condemned  race  of  mankind.  In  this 
way,  however,  the  rejection  of  any  "cause  in  us,"  in  the  matter 
of  our  election,  vocation,  justification,  and  salvation,  gets  to  have 
an  entirely  different  meaning  from  that  which  our  opponents  find 
in  it.  For  they  maintain  that  we  dare  not  conceive  the  bestowal 
of  eternal  life,  which  takes  place  for  certain  sinners  through  their 
election,  as  dependent  on  the  foreseen  apprehension  of  Christ's 
merit  by  faith,  since  in  Him  alone  the  lost  sinner  can  obtain  from 
God  forgiveness  of  all  his  sins  and  thereby  also  life  and  salvation. 
The  choice  of  certain  persons  is  represented  indeed  as  being  in 
essence  the  bestowal  of  eternal  life;  but  foreseen  faith,  taken 
strictly  as  the  apprehension  of  Christ's  merits,  is  said  not  to  have 
been  a  prerequisite  of  this  bestowal,  but  only  a  fruit  and  result 
of  it.  This  is  even  claimed  to  have  been  the  meaning  of  the 
fathers  when  they  rejected  every  "cause  in  us."  Compare  with 
this  the  following  telling  testimony  of  Martin  Chemnitz,  taken 
from  his  exposition  of  the  passage:  "God  so  loved  the  world:" — ■ 
"It  is  here  explained  how  and  why  the  incarnate  Son  of  God 
took  upon  Himself  our  deliverance.  In  the  secret  counsel  of  the 
Triune  God  the  decree  of  redemption  was  formed,  in  inexpressible 
mercy,  to  save  us  without  any  merit  whatever  on  our  part,  by  the 
free  grace  and  love  and  mercy  of  God;  hence  we  are  to  be  assured 
that  election,  justification,  and  the  bestowal  of  salvation  through 
faith  is  valid  before  God  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  And  we  will 
show  briefly  how  each  single  word  must  be  weighed.  By  using 
a  word  designating  past  time:  (God)  'so  loved  the  world,'  He 
leads  us  to  consider  what  is  set  forth  more  completely  in  Eph.  1, 
4-5;  2  Tim.  1,  9.  Here  we  read  that  God,  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  and  before  the  time  of  the  world,  out  of  grace,  ac- 
cording to  the  purpose  and  good  pleasure  of  His  will,  foreor- 
dained and  determined  to  redeem  us  through  the  blood  of  Christ, 
to  receive  us  unto  sonship,  and  to  make  us  pleasing  to  Himself 


Authors  of  the  Foriuula  of  Concord.  213 

inito  everlasting  life.*     For  the  Son  of  God  did  not  hit  upon  the 
thought  of  salvation  in  a  sudden  impulse  or  without  deeper  con- 
sideration; it  was  decided  in  the  secret  counsel  of  the  Triune  God 
before  the  time  of  the  world.     Therefore  all  these  things  are  fixed 
and  legally  estabHshed.     And,  of  course,  at  that  time,  before  the 
beginning  of  the  world,  when  we  were  not  yet  in  existence,  there 
could  be  no  reference  to  any  merit  of  the  world.     And  in  order 
tiiat  no  one  may  think  that  God  possibly  foresaw  something  in 
lis,  or  that  there  is  in  us  any  cause  on  account  of  which  God  should 
deem  us  worthy  of  consideration  and  of  freeing  us,  Christ  places 
Qod  and  the  world  in  opposition  to  each  other,  i.  e.  God  and  sin- 
corrupted  man.     For  God  is  the  highest  good,  sufBcient  unto 
Himself,  requiring  no  one,  beholden  to  none,  and  having  many 
thousands  of  angels  to  do  His  bidding.     Man,  however,  is  dust 
and  earth,  like  a  withered  flower,  like  vanishing  vapor.     What 
then  is  man,  the  miserable  creature,  that  He  is  mindful  of  him, 
and  the  son  of  man  that  He  should  visit  him?     Ps.  8,  4.     Yea. 
the  whole  world  lies  in  wickedness,  1  John  5,  19.     The  carnal 
mind  is  at  enmity  against  God,  Rom.  8,  7.     And  God  is  a  jealous 
God  who  does  not  wish  sin,  but  punishes  and  condemns  it.     Now 
that  God,  being  such  as  He  is,  should  not  reject  and  condemn 
the  world  utterly,  but  without  any  merit  on  its  part,  against  all  it 
had  deserved,  should  love  it,  is  an  immensurable,  incomprehen- 
sible, and  unutterable  mercy.     As  Paul  says,  Rom.  5,  8:     'God 
commendeth  His  love  toward  us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sin- 
ners, Christ  died  for  us ;  for  scarcely  for  a  righteous  man  will  one 
die:  yet  peradventure  for  a  good  man  some  would  even  dare  to 
die.'     But  we  must  not  think  that  God  loves  or  sanctions  sin  itself, 
or  that  He  is  unconcerned  whether  men  resist  or  obey,  or  that 
men  are  pleasing  or  acceptable  to  Him  when  they  remain  in  their 
vices.     For  this  militates  openly  against  the  whole  doctrine  of 
the  Law,  of  which  not  one  jot  or  tittle  will  pass  away  or  fall  to 
the  ground  without  being  fulfilled.  Matt.  5,  18;  Rom.  3,  31.     But 
the  word  'love'  includes  mercy,  as  is  set  forth  in  Eph.  2,  4;  i.  e. 
God  foresaw  the  lamentable  corruption  and  deplorable  destruc- 
tion of  the  whole  human  race;  and  in  His  immensurable  mercy 

*  To  understand  the  doctrine  of  Chemnitz  aright,  it  is  important  to 
note  that  he  takes  passages  like  Eph.  1,  4,  and  2  Tim.  1,  9,  as  referring  to 
the  universal  counsel  of  salvation.  Compare  below  where  in  the  same 
way  he  finds  "the  counsel  concerning  the  redemption  of  the  human  race 
through  Christ"  in  Eph.  1,  4:    2  Tim.  1,  9;    Titus  1,  2. 


214  Intuitu  Fidei. 

and  pity  He  grieved  deeply  that  the  whole  human  race  must 
so  miserably  perish  forever;  and  thus,  moved  by  mercy  and  com- 
passion, He  formed  the  thought  and  determination  to  redeem 
and  free  the  human  race;  and  this,  although  He  had  passed  by 
the  fallen  nature  of  the  angels,  notwithstanding  they  were  far 
more  excellent  than  we,  and  left  them  in  their  deserved  condem- 
nation. For  this  consideration  also  glorifies  God's  love  toward 
us.  But  in  order  that  no  contradictory  or  conflicting  wills  may 
be  attributed  to  God,  the  thought  must  always  be  held  fast,  that 
this  decree  of  redemption  was  formed  on  the  basis  of  Christ's 
mediation,  who  offered  Himself  as  a  propitiation.  For  the  love 
and  mercy  of  God  toward  us  sinners  rests  on  Christ  as  the  Media- 
tor."    (Harm.  Ev.,  p.  248.) 

X. 

It  is  altogether  unscriptural  to  conclude:  "God  has  from 
eternity  out  of  grace,  on  account  of  the  merits  of  Christ  alone, 
granted  eternal  life  to  the  elect;  therefore,  in  this  granting  of  sal- 
vation faith  in  Christ  has  not  come  into  consideration."  This 
is  evinced  by  the  fact,  that  God's  eternal  decree,  as  revealed  to 
us  in  the  Gospel,  is  precisely  this:  "That  whosoever  believeth 
in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  In  his  ex- 
planation of  these  words  Chemnitz,  therefore,  proves  clearly  that 
salvation,  according  to  God's  eternal  decree,  is  inded  entirely  a 
gift  of  grace,  that  nevertheless  it  is  in  complete  harmony  with  this 
doctrine  to  teach  that,  in  the  eternal  counsel  of  God,  the  rule, 
"whosoever  believes  shall  be  saved,"  formed  a  link  in  the  chain 
of  decrees  constituting  predestination.  And  the  Formula  of 
Concord  likewise  mentions  this  expressly  as  one  of  the  eternal 
decrees  in  predestination,  that  God  receives  as  sons  and  heirs  of 
eternal  life  those  who  receive  Christ  in  faith,  but  outside  of  those 
who  receive  Christ  He  would  save  none. 

Chemnitz  explains  the  words:  "That  whosoever  believeth 
in  Him,"  etc.,  as  follows:  "This  Christ  acquired  for  us  by  His 
merit,  that  in  the  judgment  of  God  we  do  not  become  subject  to 
the  destruction  of  eternal  damnation  on  account  of  our  sins  in 
accordance  with  the  sentence  of  the  Law,  but  that  we,  as  believers, 
obtain  eternal  life  for  His  sake.  And  hereby  He  shows  us  that 
as  long  as  we  are  separated  from  Christ  we  are  in  the  net  of  eternal 
condemnation,  and  have  no  part  in  eternal  life.  At  the  same  time 
He  shows  us  that  faith  is  the  regular  means  through  which  we 


AidJiors  of  the  Fornnila  of  Concord.  215 

receive,  apprehend,  and  appropriate  the  grace  of  God  and  the 
merit  of  Christ,  and  make  it  our  own  for  our  deHverance  from  de- 
struction and  unto  eternal  life.  In  the  Law  many  impossible 
works  are  required.  But  these  blessed  gifts  of  Christ  God  offers 
us  through  the  service  of  the  Gospel  in  such  manner  that,  by 
merely  bringing  faith  along,  which  also  the  Holy  Ghost  works 
in  us  through  the  Word,  we  become  partakers  and  joint  posses- 
sors of  the  merits  of  Christ.  Thus  our  salvation  is  entirely  a  gift 
of  God.  and  depends  on  Him  alone.  And  that  He  may  invite 
the  whole  world  to  partake  of  Christ's  merits,  and  cut  ofif  every 
excuse  of  unbelievers.  He  says:  'That  whosoever  believeth  in 
Him.'  These  words  are  also  full  of  consolation  for  us  in  our  un- 
worthiness;  they  say  to  us:  No  matter  what  kind  of  a  sinner 
you  are,  what  your  station  in  life,  or  your  age  may  be,  if  only 
you  truly  believe  in  Christ,  you  will  be  saved.  For  whosoever 
believeth  in  Him  shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  But 
that  true  faith  must  have  true  repentance,  and  must  afterwards 
be  active  in  love,  is  shown  elsewhere.  Here  we  .purpose  to  ex- 
plain only  what  Christ  says;  i.  e.  it  is  not  demanded  that  we  by 
our  own  works  make  ourselves  worthy  or  acceptable  for  partici- 
pating in  Christ's  merits,  or  that  we  add  something  of  our  patch- 
work; on  the  contrary,  we  are  to  receive  by  faith,  as  it  were  with 
a  beggar's  hand,  the  all-sufificient  satisfaction  of  Christ  and  His 
perfect  righteousness,  ofifered  to  us  in  the  Gospel;  and  this,  that 
the  promise  may  stand  sure,  Rom.  4,  16.  And  from  this  the  con- 
clusion is  drawn  as  to  how  and  why  faith  justifies,  regenerates, 
and  saves ;  it  does  this  not  because  of  its  own  virtue  or  character, 
but  because  it  embraces  Christ  and  the  merits  of  His  obedience 
and  suffering,  as  ofifered  to  us  in  the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  and 
places  Him  between  our  sins  and  the  wrath  and  judgment  of  God. 
And  it  is  certain  that  God  will  receive  such  faith,  because  He 
Himself  gave  His  Son  into  death  for  us,  and  now  ofifers  Him  to 
us  through  the  Spirit  in  the  Word  as  our  salvation,  so  that  who- 
soever believeth  shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  This 
also  shows  us  why  faith  must  be  a  sure  confidence  of  the  heart. 
For  he  who  doubts  that  Christ's  merit  is  sufificient  for  his  salva- 
tion, reviles  the  bitter  death  of  Christ.  But  he  who  doubts  whether 
the  Father  will  receive  those  in  mercy  who  believe,  denies  the 
very  decree  which  was  formed  in  the  common  council  of  the 
Trinity:  'That  whosoever  believeth  shall  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  life.'     Therefore,  those  who  have  been  reconciled  to 


216  Intuitu  Fidei. 

God  through  faith  are  not  to  doubt  that  God  earnestly  loves  them, 
since  He  loved  us  so  exceedingly  while  we  were  yet  His  enemies, 
Rom.  5,  10,  and  since  He  has  given  the  dearest  pledge  of  His 
love,  His  only  begotten  Son."     (Harm.  Ev.,  p.  244.) 

XL 

"The  Father  gives  us  everything  necessary  to  eternal  life, 
but  by  the  hand  of  the  Son.  Since  we  are  not  worthy  to  receive 
these  things,  the  incarnate  Son  has  been  established  as  Medi- 
ator, and  He  merits  all  and  is  worthy.  .  .  .  The  Father  hath 
given  over  all  things  to  Him,  that  He  may  preserve  our  portion 
until  that  day,  2  Tim.  4,  8.  Even  when  man's  nature  was  yet  per- 
fect, it  could  not  preserve  the  blessings  it  possessed;  how  should 
it  be  able  to  preserve  them  now?  So  the  Father  has  entrusted 
our  portion  to  a  safe  and  reliable  guardian,  placing  it  into  the 
hand  of  His  Son;  only  we  must  keep  faith,  as  Paul  says,  2  Tim. 
4,  7."     (Harm.  Ev.,  p.  258.) 

xn. 

Did  Chemnitz  really  teach  an  election  in  view  of  divine  fore- 
knowledge? That  would  discredit  him  in  the  eyes  of  our  oppo- 
nents. And  yet  we  cannot  judge  otherwise  when  we  carefully 
weigh  his  words  concerning  the  election  of  Judas  Iscariot  to  the 
apostleship  (Harm.  Ev.,  p.  403).  He  there  asks  the  question, 
whether  God  indeed  erred  in  His  judgment,  when  this  traitor 
was  chosen  to  be  an  apostle.  That  He  did  not  err  is  shown  al- 
ready in  John  6,  64,  where  we  are  told  that  Jesus  knew  even  from 
the  beginning  who  was  unbelieving  and  who  would  betray  Him. 
God  certainly  had  His  reasons  why  Judas,  who  according  to  God's 
foreknowledge  would  betray  the  Savior,  nevertheless  was  received 
into  the  original  number  of  the  apostles.  It  is  of  especial  im- 
portance here  to  distinguish  between  election  and  election,  be- 
tween the  election  unto  the  apostleship  and  the  election  unto  sal- 
vation. "The  Scriptures,"  says  Chemnitz,  "maintain  both:  that 
Judas  was  elected  by  Christ,  and  that  he  was  not.  John  6,  70, 
Vv^e  read:  'Have  I  not  chosen  you  twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a 
devil!'  But  John  13,  18:  T  speak  not  of  you  all;  for  I  know 
whom  I  have  chosen.'  Jesus  then  knew  that  Judas  would  be  a 
traitor.  But  He  did  not  order  the  election  of  apostles  according 
to  this  divine  foreknowledge;  in  this  He  followed  the  signs  and 


Atithors  of  the  Foniiu/a  of  Concord.  217 

indications  of  which  men  are  able  to  judge.*  For  without  doubt, 
according  to  outward  appearance  Judas  was  diHgent,  zealous, 
well-informed,  and  of  good  behavior." 

Chemnitz  distinguishes  between  the  election  to  the  apostle- 
ship  and  the  election  to  salvation,  by  saying  the  former  did  not 
take  place  "according  to  this  divine  foreknowledge,  and  so  Judas 
could  indeed  be  chosen  as  an  apostle,  although  Jesus  knew  that 
he  would  become  the  traitor.  Chemnitz,  however,  does  not  pro- 
ceed to  show  that  election  to  salvation  does  take  place  "accord- 
ing to  this  divine  foreknowledge,"  and  that  therefore  the  Savior 
could  also  say,  Judas  is  not  among  the  number  of  the  elect,  i.e. 
of  those  elected  to  obtain  salvation.  But  the  distinction  made 
by  Chemnitz  in  regard  to  two  kinds  of  election,  even  adding  the 
distinguishing  mark  of  the  one  kind  as  "not  according  to  this 
divine  foreknowledge,"  would  be  entirely  without  sense  or  pur- 
pose, if  he  had  not  conceived  of  the  other  election,  that  unto  sal- 
vation, as  having  indeed  taken  place  "according  to  this  divine 
foreknowledge,"  so  that  Judas  could  not  in  this  sense  be  among 
the  elect.  If  Chemnitz  had  entertained  the  idle  notion,  that 
neither  the  election  to  the  apostleship,  nor  the  election  to  salva- 
tion took  place  "according  to  this  divine  foreknowledge,"  he 
could  not  possibly  have  given  as  the  distinguishing  mark  of  the 
one,  the  fact  of  its  not  taking  place  according  to  the  divine  fore- 
knowledge; nor  could  he  possibly  have  given  this  as  the  reason 
and  explanation,  why  Judas  could  indeed  be  chosen  in  one  sense, 
and  yet  not  in  the  other.  Chemnitz  evidently  means  to  say:  A 
man  like  Judas  could  indeed  be  chosen  to  the  apostleship,  be- 
cause this  election  is  not  governed  by  the  divine  foreknowledge 
as  to  what  Judas'  end  would  be ;  but  to  salvation  he  was  not,  and 
could  not  be,  elected,  because  this  election  is  governel  by  "this 
divine  foreknowledge." 

What  Chemnitz  does  not  enlarge  upon  yet  plainly  implies 
as  his  meaning,  John  Gerhard  expressed  fully  in  his  continua- 
tion of  the  Harmony  (II,  p.  1067).  He  writes:  "When  Christ 
says:  'I  know  whom  I  have  chosen,'  His  meaning  is:  I  do  not 
only  know  now  what  your  mind  is  toward  me,  but  I  knew  and 
saw  it  already  in  eternity;  and  this  is  why,  when  I  together  with 


*  Electionem  autem  Apostolorum  instituit  non  juxta  divinam  illam 
praescientiam,  sed  juxta  ilia  signa  et  testimonia,  de  quibus  homo  judicare 
potest. 


218  Intuitu  '  Fidei. 

the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  formed  the  eternal  decree  of  elec- 
tion, I  did  not  choose  you  all,  but  only  those  of  whom  I  foresaw 
that  they  would  perseveringly  believe  in  me,  Rom.  8,  29.  Al- 
though I  have  chosen  you  all  to  the  apostleship,  also  the  traitor, 
yet  I  have  not  chosen  you  all  to  eternal  salvation;  but  I  know 
whoui  I  have  chosen,  namely  you  others  who  hear  my  voice, 
John  10,  17,  you  who  believe  in  me,  1  Tim.  1,  16,  you  who  do 
not  willingly  and  wilfully  commit  crimes,  as  a  certain  one  among 
you  has  done,  but  receive  my  admonitions  with  faithful  and  obedi- 
ent hearts." 

XIII. 

A  further  testimony  to  the  efifect  that  Chcnniitz  did  not 
think  the  secret  foreordination  of  God  dependent  upon  His  mere 
unconditional  will,  but  conceived  of  it  as  being  closely  connected 
with  the  divine  foresight  of  all  things,  we  find  in  his  explanation 
of  the  words:  "Your  heavenly  Father  knoweth  what  things  ye 
have  need  of,  before  ye  ask  Him"  (Matt.  6,  8).  "For  God  knows 
before  we  ask  not  only  what  we  have  need  of,  but  also  what 
He  wills  to  do  and  will  do,  and  yet  His  foreordination  is  not 
independent  of  our  asking.  On  the  contrary,  this  secret  divine 
foreordination  is  governed,  through  the  intervening  foreknowl- 
edge of  all  things,  by  the  question  whether  prayer,  which  He 
has  commanded  us  as  an  order  of  His  will,  is  uttered  in  time,, 
or  is  neglected.  His  omniscient  foreordination  follows  the  re- 
vealed order,  and  takes  into  consideration  in  how  far  the  com- 
mands of  the  divine  ordering:  'Ask  and  it  shall  be  given  you; 
seek,  and  ye  shall  find;  knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened  unto  you,' 
have  been  complied  with.  For  he  that  asketh  shall  receive;  and 
he  that  seeketh  shall  find;  and  to  him  that  knocketh  it  shall  be 
opened.  Even  in  God's  secret  foreordination  the  petition  that 
is  uttered  in  time  is  taken  as  a  prerequisite  or  condition  on  which 
the  obtaining  of  the  blessing  as  an  answer  to  prayer  is  depend- 
ent. In  the  same  way  God's  omniscient  foreordination  is  gov- 
erned by  the  word:  'Ye  have  not  because  ye  ask  not.'  He  who 
reasons:  'God  has  foreordained  everything  He  will  do  and  give; 
of  what  use  is  prayer?  if  He  is  not  willing,  according  to  His 
secret  foreordination,  that  I  should  be  released  from  sin  or  die 
in  saving  faith,  then  all  my  prayers  and  pleadings  are  in  vain"  — 
he  who  reasons  thus  would,  as  Luther  says,  entertain  'foolish, 
devilish  thoughts.'     For  all  that  God  -has  predetermined  or  not 


Authors  of  the  Fonuula  of  Concord.  219 

predetermined  in  His  secret  coiinsel  depends,  by  virtue  of  His 
omniscience  and  divine  foreknowledge,  altogether  upon  the  order 
He  has  fixed  and  made  known  to  us,  to  which  we  should  submit, 
and  according  to  which  He  intends  to  deal  with  us.     We  can 
therefore  truthfully  say:    If  God  had  found  more  people  ready 
to  submit  to  His  order,  He  would  have  foreordained  more  unto 
salvation;   for  even  in  eternity  man's  foreordination  was  depend- 
ent on  whether  he  would  submit  to  the  divine  order  or  not.     As 
Luther  says:    'Few  are  chosen,  that  is,  few  so  deport  themselves 
toward  the  Gospel  that  God  has  pleasure  in  them.'     And  again: 
'Let  every  man  sweep  before  his  own  door,  then  we  all  will  be 
saved'"   (evidently   meaning:    then  we   all   are   foreordained   to 
salvation  even  before  the  foundation  of  the  world) ;    "  'then  it 
will  not  require  much  brooding  on  what  God  has  determined  in 
His  counsel,  as  to  who  shall  and  who  shall  not  be  saved'  "  (for  this 
secret  counsel  is  governed  by  the  omniscient  foreknowledge  of 
God  as  to  how  those  called  will  deport  themselves  toward  the 
Gospel,  whether  they  will  "sweep  before  their  own  doors"  ac- 
cording to  God's  will,  i.  e.  repent  and  believe,  hear  God's  Word 
diligently,  pray,  etc.,  —  ail  this  through  the  grace  offered  them). — 
Hear  now  how  Chemnitz  speaks  of  God's  secret  foreordina- 
tion and  its  relation  to  the  revealed  order.     He  writes:    "There 
are  some  who  contend,  or  at  least  trouble  themselves  with  the 
thought:    Since  God,  without  our  asking  and  before  our  asking, 
already  knows,  and  has  even  foreordained  and  fixed,  what  He 
will  do  or  give,  our  asking  will  be  a  useless  thing,  requesting 
something  that  will  come  at  any  rate,  or  it  will  be  a  godless  thing, 
hoping  to  turn  God  from  His  fixed  decree  and  purpose,  and  at- 
tempting thus  to  render  Him  unstable  and  changeable.     Some 
reply  to  this  objection  as  follows:   If  what  I  pray  for  is  predestined 
to  take  place,  I  can  certainly  pray  with  all  confidence;   if  not,  no 
attempt  is  made  to  hinder  or  disturb  the  course  of  divine  fore- 
ordination, because  we  pray:    Thy  will  be  done.     But  Luther's 
explanation  is  simpler  and  safer.     He  tells  us:   We  are  not  com- 
manded to  trouble  ourselves  at  all  about  this  hidden  foreknowl- 
edge (arcana  prsescientia)  of  God,  nor  to  pry  into   His  secret 
counsels  and  decrees;    but  we  are  commanded  to  govern  our- 
selves according  to  His  will  as  revealed  in  the  Word,  and  here 
He  teaches  us  that  by  repentance  and  prayer  God's  anger  is 
appeased,  many  dangers  and  evils  are  warded   off,  and   many 


220  Intuitu  Fidei. 

blessings  are  obtained.  Jer.  18,  8;  Ezek.  33,  11;  1  Kings  8,  56. 
And  therefore  He  earnestly  commands  us  to  pray;  yea,  He  is 
greatly  displeased,  when  he  finds  none  ready  to  build  himself 
a  wall  and  stand  in  the  breach  against  Him  (by  prayer)  to  pre- 
vent His  destroying  the  land,  Ezek.  22,  30.  Christ  thus  bids  us 
remember  (by  this  word:  Your  Father  knoweth,  etc.):  in  the 
first  place,  that  God  is  entirely  wiUing  to  help  us,  and  that  He 
knows  what  we  lack,  and  what  He  will  do;  in  the  second  place, 
that  it  is  none  the  less  God's  will  and  command  that  we  should 
pray.  Furthermore,  we  are  to  make  and  admit  no  deductions 
from  His  hidden  foreknowledge*  contrary  to  the- revelations  and 
commands  contained  in  His  Word.  If,  however,  you  are  unable 
to  harmonize  these  things,  leave  it  to  God  tO'  figure  out  His 
secret  foreknowledge,  and  do  on  your  part  what  His  Word  com- 
mands and  prescribes  for  you,  namely  that  you  shall  pray,  and 
this  without  ceasing."  —  Note  well  how  Chemnitz  here  puts  God's 
foreknowledge  in  the  foreground,  and  not  the  mere  foreordi- 
nation  of  an  unconditional,  absolute  purpose. 

XIV. 

The  assertion  and  the  denial,  that  the  older  Lutheran  teachers 
did  not  call  the  entire  decree  concerning  the  salvation  of  sinners 
at  the  same  time  also  the  counsel  of  predestination  or  election, 
perhaps  more  than  anything  else  at  present,  creates  confusion 
and  error  in  judging  their  presentation  of  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion. He  who  overlooks  this,  or  intentionally  disregards  it,  nec- 
essarily misunderstands  these  older  teachers  completely.  He  who 
takes  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation,  of  which  election  unto 
the  infallible  attainment  of  salvation  is  merely  an  essential  part; 
he  who  goes  on  and  places  by  the  side  of  this  universal  counsel 
a  particular  and  independent  decree  of  "saving"  election  which 
from  the  very  start  applies  only  to  the  sinners  therein  chosen; 
he  who  then  proceeds  and  transfers  to  this  particular  and  inde- 


*  As  for  instance  the  terrible  deduction  of  modern  Missouri,  which  is 
offered  as  a  part  of  the  "Gospel":  "If  I  do  not  belong  to  the  elect"  (i.  e. 
to  those  predestinated  according  to  the  free  purpose  and  mere  will  of 
God),  "then  I  may  pray  ever  so  diligently  (!),  hear  God's  Word,  receive 
absolution,  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  all  in  vain  (i.  e.  the  non- 
elect  may  "sweep  before  their  own  doors"  ever  so  diligently,  they  simply 
cannot  and  shall  not  be  saved!). 


Authoj'S  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  221 

pendent  decree  what  our  older  dogmaticians  say  of  the  counsel 
of  election  as  they  understood  it  —  why,  he,  most  assuredly,  will 
dish  up  a  lot  of  exceedingly  curious  statements.  This  mistake 
constitutes  a  "proton  pseudos"  (fundamental  error),  and  has 
caused  terrible  harm.  And  yet  our  old  writers  have  treated  this 
subject  so  often  and  thoroughly,  that  he  who  is  at  all  acquainted 
with  their  statements  cannot  possibly  remain  in  error,  unless  he 
wishes  to  err  intentionally,  i.  e.  to  hold  fast  his  preconceived 
false  notions  in  spite  of  the  clear  truth.  Of  course,  we  do  not 
here  refer  to  that  choir  of  parrots  who,  to  use  the  words  of  Pres- 
ident Schwan,  "merely  repeat  what  they  have  been  told  before," 
"and  thus  manage  to  produce  a  "wonderful"  unity  of  the  spirit. 
Consider,  for  instance,  how  often  Chemnitz  resolves  the  counsel 
of  "predestination  or  election"  into  its  component  parts.  What 
is  the  outcome  in  every  instance?  Why,  precisely  what  we  term 
the  universal  plan  of  salvation.  He  explicitly  and  most  emphat- 
ically demands  that  we  treat  all  the  different  parts  of  the  order 
of  salvation  (  as  we  generally  term  it)  as  constituent  parts  of  the 
counsel  of  election  or  of  the  decree  of  predestination;  and  this 
not  only  in  so  far  —  as  Missounri  indefatigably  asserts,  especially 
in  regard  to  the  eight  points  in  the  F.  C.  —  as  this  order  refers 
also  to  the  elect,  but  in  so  far  as  this  counsel  of  election  constitutes 
for  all  men  in  the  same  way  the  one  and  only  counsel  of  salva- 
tion, which  God  formed  in  eternity  and  revealed  in  His  Word. 
Concerning  the  universal  order  of  salvation,  as  constituting  in 
all  its  parts  for  all  men  the  only  valid  order  for  obtaining  salva- 
tion, Chemnitz  has  the  following  to  say :  "This  is  the  simple  mean- 
ing and  purport  of  what  belongs  to  the  foresight  of  God,  what 
it  embraces,  and  wherein  it  consists."  "Prgedestinatio  embraces 
the  whole  plan  of  redemption,  vocation,  justification,  and  glori- 
fication." So  then  the  universal  plan  of  salvation  is  also  the 
counsel  of  predestination.  God  did  not  form  two  essentially  dif- 
ferent counsels  of  salvations,  one  conditional  for  the  salvation 
of  all  men,  if  they  repent  and  believe,  the  other  unconditional 
for  the  salvation  only  of  the  elect,  as  a  result  of  which  only  these 
actually  shall  and  must  come  to  repentance  and  persevering  faith. 
The  former  as  the  revealed  counsel  of  God  having  a  so-called 
"universal"  and  a  "certain  sufftcient"  grace  (actually,  however, 
very  insufficient);  the  latter,  however,  having  a  grace  which 
"guarantees"  all  its  operations,  which  infallibly  "attains  its  end," 


222  Int2iitit  Fidei. 

which,  to  come  right  out  with  it,  is  an  irresistible  grace,  existing 
in  the  secret  counsel  and  purpose  of  God  only  for  the  elect,  and 
bringing  these  unconditionally  and  infallibly  unto  salvation.  For, 
says  modern  Missouri,  how  could  one  of  the  elect  prevent  God 
by  his  wilful  resistance  from  converting  and  saving  him?  He 
cannot  prevent  Him!  The  grace  which  exists  for  him  as  a  result 
of  his  election,  operating  as  a  "cause,"  must  prevail,  he  must 
be  converted  and  saved,  as  the  snow  must  melt  under  the  vivify- 
ing rays  of  the  sun  in  spring!  Two  kinds  of  counsels  with  two 
kinds  of  grace  constitute  the  "adorable  mystery"  of  the  new  doc- 
trine of  election.  But  of  all  this  Chemnitz  knows  absolutely 
nothing.  For  him  the  act  of  election  is  the  division,  determined 
on  in  eternity  and  clearly  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  regarding  the 
bestowal  of  salvation  and  of  damnation,  the  separation  which 
God  instituted  between  sinners  and  sinners,  predestinating  as 
heirs  of  salvation  all  those  who  believe  in  Christ,  and  excluding 
irom  the  inheritance  all  those  who  do  not  believe.  For  without 
payment  God  grants  heaven  to  no  sinner.  The  payment  that 
must  be  made  is  Christ's  merit  and  righteousness.  And  this  pay- 
ment can  be  considered  as  having  been  personally  rendered  by 
the  sinner  himself  only  through  faith.  There  is  not  one  living 
word  in  all  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  as  its  glad  tidings  are  to  be 
proclaimed  to  all  creatures,  concerning  any  further  particular 
counsel  of  God,  as  to  which  sinners  only  He  really  means  to 
assist  by  a  "guaranteeing,  prevailing"  (i.  e.  irresistible)  grace 
in  the  rendering  of  this  payment  through  believing  acceptance 
•  of  Christ's  merit.  The  Gospel  knows  only  of  one  counsel,  and 
this  is  at  once  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  and  the  counsel 
of  election,  which  declares  tO'  us:  "God  so  loved  the  world  — 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  shall  not  perish."  And  so 
"election  in  Christ"  is  proclaimed  to  all  men  and  offered  to  all 
in  the  Gospel,  that  they  may  "seek  it  there  and  be  able  to  find  it." 

But  let  us  hear  now  how  Chemnitz  sets  forth  his  doctrine 
concerning  the  real  essence  of  the  counsel  of  predestination. 
"The  doctrine  of  predestination,"  he  writes  in  his  Examen,  p.  152, 
"shows  us  the  decrees  which  God  formed  and  afterwards  revealed 
in  the  Word,  concerning  the  causes  and  the  manner  of  saving 
and  of  condemning.  There  is  1)  the  decree  of  God  concerning 
the  redemption  of  the  human  race  through  the  obedience  and 
sufifering  of  the  Mediator  Christ.     2)  The  decree  of  vocation 


A^ithors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  223 

through  the  office  of  the  Word,  inviting  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles 
unto  participation  in  the  merit  of  Christ  for  their  salvation.  3) 
The  decree  of  God,  that  by  means  of  the  hearing  of  the  Word 
He  will  work  through  His  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  men,  that  they 
may  repent  and  believe  the  Gospel.  4)  The  decree  of  God,  that 
when  men  feel  their  sins  and  the  wrath  of  God.  f^ee  by  faith  to 
the  throne  of  grace,  and  accept  the  Mediator  Christ  presented 
in  the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  He  will  justify  and  save  them,  but 
will  damn  those  who  reject  the  Word,  despise  and  refuse  to  accept 
the  promise.  This  is  the  sum  and  explanation  of  the  doctrine 
of  predestination,  as  it  is  revealed  in  the  Word." 

According  to  Chemnitz  these  four  decrees  contain  a  brief 
summary  or  epitome  of  the  doctrine  of  election  "as  it  is  revealed 
in  the  Word."  The  universal  counsel  of  salvation  is  at  the  same 
time  the  counsel  of  predestination,  inasmuch  as  the  selection  of 
those  who  alone  are  to  receive  salvation  is  merely  the  realization 
of  the  decree  contained  in  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation,  i.  e. 
that  God  will  save  none  except  those  who  acknowledge  Christ 
by  faith,  as  also  the  Epitome,  §  13,  declares.  Election,  therefore, 
understood  as  the  external  fixed  decree  regarding  the  bestowal 
of  salvation  upon  certain  sinners  as  distinguished  from  all  others, 
presupposes  in  these  elect,  through  divine  foresight,  the  knowl- 
edge of  Christ,  to  which  eternal  life  is  joined,  John  17,  3.  So 
at  least  God's  will  and  decree  concerning  salvation  has  been 
revealed  to  us;  not  vice  versa,  that  first  of  all  God  in  His  will 
determined  which  sinners  from  among  all  sinners  He  would  surely 
bring  to  salvation,  and  that  faith  then  is  regarded  merely  as  a 
means  in  the  decree  for  carrying  it  into  effect,  and  must  be  placed 
after  the  actual  selection  of  persons  as  a  result  or  effect  of  this 
selection.  But  what  a  strange  supposition,  to  imagine  that 
Chemnitz  wants  to  give  us  in  these  four  decrees  "a  sum  or 
analysis"  of  the  revealed  doctrine  of  predestination,  and  then 
fails  to  touch  even  with  a  word  the  very  chief  thing,  accord- 
ing to  Missouri's  view,  the  real  kernel  and  essence  of  election! 
He  talks  at  great  length  about  an  "altogether  different  thing" 
in  these  four  decrees,  and  never  breathes  a  single  word  about 
the  real  "predestination"  as  our  Calvinizing  Lutherans  would 
have  us  understand  it!  Not  the  slightest  trace  of  "predestination" 
is  to  be  found  in  these  four  decrees  as  our  modern  Missour- 
ians  have  been  learned  from  the  Dort  fathers  to  define  it  (see 


224  Intuitu  Fidei. 

"Altes  and  Neues,"  Vol.  1,  p.  92).  And  still  we  are  told  that 
even  Chemnitz  understood  "predestination"  as  something  differ- 
ing from,  yea,  contrary  to,  the  entire  counsel  of  salvation.  He 
supposed,  we  are  told,  that  "predestination"  is  the  especial  mer- 
ciful decree  concerning  sinners  as  such  from  among  sinners;  the 
decree  taking  some  "certain  persons"  from  among  them,  without 
reference  to  future  faith  as  a  condition  or  prerequisite  ol  "saving 
election,"  and  foreordaining  them  unto  salvation,  and  thereby 
also  unto  faith,  or,  if  you  prefer,  unto  "salvation  through  faith." 
Poor  Chemnitz!  Expressing  yourself  so  unintelligibly;  evidently 
confusing  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation  with  the  counsel  of 
predestination!  You  should  have  known  that  this  is  "an  alto- 
gether different  thing."  But  why  did  you  live  in  such  unenlight- 
ened times! 

XV. 

In  his  sermon  on  Matthew  22  Chemnitz  further  explains 
how  it  comes  that  only  so  few  are  chosen  while  so  many  are  called. 
He  writes:  "In  this  parable  the  Lord  shows  item  by  item  what 
all  belongs  to  this  article,  and  how  one  part  always  follows  and 
flows  from  the  other.  Predestination  or  divine  election  consists 
in  and  embraces  the  following:  Since  God  foresaw  that  the  hu- 
man race  would  fall  away  from  Him  through  sin,  and  thereby 
sink  under  God's  wrath  and  the  devil's  power  into  eternal  de- 
struction and  damnation.  He  considered,  deliberated,  and  de- 
termined in  His  secret  counsel,  before  the  foundations  of  the 
world  were  laid,  how  the  human  race  might  be  delivered  from 
its  destruction  and  be  brought  again  to  salvation.  He  thus  de- 
termined: 

1 )  That  His  own  Son  should  take  upon  Himself  our  human 
nature;  that  is,  as  the  parable  .states,  the  King  prepared  a  wed- 
ding feast  for  His  Son,  and  desired  Him  to  espouse  or  wed  our 
human  nature. 

2)  That  He  should  be  put  under  the  Law,  and  be  slain  as 
a  sacrifice  for  our  sins ;  that  thus  through  Him  everything  neces- 
sary for  the  wedding  joys  of  eternal  salvation  might  be  prepared. 

3)  That,  beside  the  flesh  and  blood  which  His  dear  Son 
would  assume  in  the  unity  of  His  person.  He  would  have  still 
other  guests  for  His  salvation,  not  from  among  the  fallen  angels, 
but  from  among  the  human  race,  which  is  now,  through  the 


Authors  of  the  Fonmita  of  Concord.  225 

assumed  human  nature  of  the  Son,  related  and  aUied  to  Him  as 
His  bride,  flesh  of  His  flesh,  and  bone  of  His  bone. 

4)  That  He  would  call  .these  guests  of  His  through  His  ser- 
vants to  the  marriage  feast;  that  is,  reveal  His  heavenly  counsel 
to  the  world  through  the  Word,  and  call  mankind  to  His  king- 
dom through  the  spoken  word. 

5)  That  He  would  be  efficacious  through  this  call,  and  would 
work  in  the  hearts  of  men,  enlighten,  convert,  and  justify  them. 

0)  That  He  would  protect,  guard,  preserve,  eternally  save, 
and  glorify  those  whom  He  had  thus  justified.  As  St.  Paul  links 
all  these  members  together,  making  a  golden  chain,  in  the  beau- 
tiful passage,  Rom.  8:  For  whom  He  did  foreknt)w,  or  predesti- 
nate, them  He  also  called;  and  whom  He  called,  them  He  also 
justified;    and  whom  He  justified,  them  He  also  glorified. 

7)  Because  God  foresaw  that  the  wickedness  of  human  na- 
ture would  not  follow  this  call  and  operation  of  God,  but  would 
resist  and  would  not  receive  the  grace  of  God,  when  desiring  to 
v/ork  in  man,  He  determined  in  His  purpose  that  all  those  who 
despise,  blaspheme,  and  persecute  His  call,  or  refuse  to  follow  it 
when  His  grace  desires  to  work  in  them,  and  persist  in  such  re- 
sistance, shall  be  punished  in  time,  and  rejected  and  damned  in 
eternity,  as  the  parable  clearly  shows. 

This  is  the  simple  meaning  and  purport  of  what  belong-s  to 
the  foresig-ht  of  God,  what  it  embraces,  and  wherein  it  consists; 
all  these  parts  we  must  take  together  when  we  speak  or  think 
of  God's  predestination  or  election,  as  Paul  treats  this  doctrine 
and  explains  it  part  by  part  in  the  entire  first  chapter  of  his  letter 
to  the  Ephesians.  And  when  I  follow  this  report  and  abide  in 
simplicity,  I  have  all  that  I  need  to  know  of  this  doctrine,  together 
with  the  assurance  that  I  cannot  err  or  go  wrong." 

Manifestly,  Chemnitz  here  again  forgot,  according  to  Mis- 
souri's notion,  the  very  chief  thing,  and  allowed  himself  to  speak 
about  "an  altogether  different  thing."  With  not  a  single  word 
does  he  say  that  election  cousists  of  this,  that  God,  according 
to  His  mere  will,  selected  from  among  those  equally  lost  some 
whom  He  vvould  bring  to  faith  and  preserve  therein.  Further 
on  we  even  read  in  his  sermon:  "Now  it  is  indeed  true  that  no 
man  is  saved  unless  he  receive  the  Word;  and  it  is  right  too 
that  no  man  should  be  able  to  receive  the  proffered  grace  of  God 
by  his  own  powers.     For  he  who  teaches  that  the  natural  free 


226  Intuitu  Fidei. 

will  of  unregenerate  man  has  the  power  and  ability  to  receive 
the  grace  of  God,  contradicts  the  entire  Word  of  God.  1  Cor.  2; 
2  Cor.  3;  Rom.  3.  But  we  must  conclude  from  the  Scriptures 
that,  when  God  presents  His  Word  to  us,  it  is  His  will  to  work 
in  us  through  His  Word,  so  that  by  His  gift,  power,  and  work 
we  may  be  enabled  to  receive  the  proffered  grace.  Yet  the  nat- 
ural wickedness  of  the  fiesh  can  indeed  resist  this  operation  of 
God,  and  God  knows  all  those  beforehand  who  will  thus  resist. 
But  1  am  not  bidden  to  search  this  out ;  on  the  contrary,  I  reason 
and  judge  according  to  God's  Word  that  when  He  calls  me  by 
the  Word  He  will  work  in  me  the  power  necessary  that  I  may 
receive  it."  —  And  here  again,  if  Missouri  is  correct,  poor  Chem- 
nitz forgets  the  main  thing. 

He  should  have  explained  the  fact,  that  some  come  to  faith, 
and  others  not,  by  stating  that,  as  regards  this  question,  the 
"mustering"  of  persons,  which  are  to  be  saved  and  which  are 
not,  had  already  taken  place  in  advance  as  the  first  thing  in  the 
order  of  events;  therefore,  this  antecedent  election  of  individual 
persons  unto  salvation  is  the  "cause"  of  their  conversion  and 
faith,  and  vice  versa,  faith  "tiows"  from  this  election  of  individual 
persons  as  from  a  higher  and  primary  source.  Chemnitz,  how- 
ever, is  satisfied  to  state,  on  the  one  hand,  that  God  would  pro- 
duce the  acceptance  of  grace  and  faith  in  all,  on  the  other  hand^ 
however,  that  all  the  called  are  left  with  the  ability  of  resisting, 
and  that  in  some  of  them  natural  resistance  becomes  at  last  wil- 
ful resistance.  Concerning  these  he  tells  us:  "(jod  knows  them 
all  beforehand";  and  not,  as  Missouri  would  have  it:  "He  hard- 
eneth  whom  He  will,"  thus  attributing  to  God  the  unconditional 
rejection  of  a  part  of  mankind. 

XVI. 

When  the  Formula  of  Concord  teaches  that  the  "eternal 
election  of  God"  —  the  election,  not  merely  its  execution,  not 
merely  the  "ways  and  means"  for  that  end  —  "has  been  revealed 
in  the  Gospel,"  it  goes  on  and  teaches  likewise  that  this  electio'n, 
taking  in  exclusively  only  those  who  will  be  saved,  pertains  only 
to  believers  as  such.  The  Gospel  speaks  about  no  other  ejection 
or  selection  of  sinners  for  salvation ;  there  is  no  "revelation"  about 
any  other  election.  Therefore  the  Epitome  describes  the  "revela- 
tion" of  election  in  the  following  manner:    "The  true  judgment 


Authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  227 

concerning  predestination  must  be  learned  alone  from  the  Holy 
Gospel  concerning  Christ,  in  which  it  is  clearly  testified  that  'God 
hath  concluded  them  all  in  unbelief,  that  He  might  have  mercy 
upon  all,'  and  that  'He  is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but 
that  ail  should  come  to  repentance'  and  believe  in  the  L.ord  Christ. 
...  In  Him,  therefore,  we  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the 
Father,  who,  in  His  eternal  divine  counsel,  determined  that  He 
would  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowledge  His  Son, 
Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  Him.  ...  As  He  has  promised  this 
gracious  election  not  only  with  mere  words,  but  has  also  certi- 
fied it  with  an  oath,  and  sealed  it  with  the  Holy  Sacraments." 
The  Solid  Declaration  points  out  just  as  emphatically  that  elec- 
tion must  be  regarded  as  having  taken  place  "in  Christ,  and  not 
beyond  or  without  Christ."  For  "in  Christ  we  are  chosen"  (not 
beyond  Christ).  "Therefore  the  entire  Holy  Trinity,  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  direct  all  men  to  Christ,  as  to  the  Book 
of  Life,  in  which  they  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the 
Father.  For  it  has  been  decided  by  the  Father  from  eternity 
that  whom  He  would  save  He  would  save  through  Christ:  'No 
man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me.'  And  again:  'I  am 
the  door;  by  me,  if  any  man  enter  in,  he  shall  Ije  saved.'  But 
Christ  as  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  who  is  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Father  (cf.  John  1,  18)  has  published  to  us  the  will  of  the 
Father,  and  thus  (hac  ratione)  also  our  election  to  eternal  life, 
viz:  when  He  says:  'Repent  ye  and  believe  the  Gospel;  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand.'  He  also  says:  'This  is  the  will  of 
Him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son  and  be- 
lieveth  on  Him  may  have  everlasting  life.'  And  again;  'God  so 
loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  onfy  begotten  Son,  that  who- 
soever believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
hfe.'  " 

Now  if  the  same  serious  reproach  is  not  to  fall  also  upon 
the  Formula  of  Concord  that,  while  using  the  word  "election," 
it  has  been  speaking  about  "an  entirely  dififerent  thing,"  then  it 
must  be  conceded  that  it  sets  up  as  the  rule  of  election,  —  "re- 
vealed and  published  in  the  Gospel,"  "promised  with  mere 
words,  and  certified  with  an  oath,  and  sealed  with  the  Sacra- 
ments"—  or  as  the  eternal  decree  of  election  this  sentence:  "All 
who  repent  and  believe  in  Christ  shall  not  perish,  but  have  ever- 
lasting life."     This  point  must  be  held  fast  as  the  very  heart  of 


228  Intuiiu  Fidei. 

the  Gospel,  otherwise  the  doctrine  of  justification  will  be  de- 
stroyed in  its  very  foundation.  Did  God  grant  irrevocably  to 
certain  sinners  eternal  life  —  and  this  He  did  —  then  He  granted 
it  to  them  either  as  sinners  without  repentance  and  faith,  as  they 
are  by  nature,  or  as  sinners  who  through  His  grace,  as  it  is 
offered  to  all,  have  come  to  repentance  and  faith,  i.  e.  from  the 
decisive  point  of  view  of  Christ's  merit  embraced  by  faith  as 
the  only  payment  for  their  sin.  For  "this  very  faith  makes  the 
difference  between  those  who  are  saved  and  those  who  are 
damned,  between  the  worthy  and  the  unworthy.  For  eternal 
life  has  been  promised  to. none  save  those  who  are  reconciled  in 
Christ"  (Book  of  Concord,  Ed.  Mueller,  p.  144).  To  teach  a 
will  of  God  which  takes  certain  unbelieving  sinners  from  among 
the  whole  unbelieving  mass,  and  ultimately  grants  to  them  eternal 
life,  is  to  overthrow  the  revealed  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  in  its 
very  foundation.  Then  it  is  plain,  not  "the  gracious  good  pleas- 
ure of  God  in  Christ,"  which  makes  a  diflference  between  sinners 
according  to  their  faith  or  their  unbelief,  but  the  absolute,  im- 
movable mere  will  of  divine  power  "had  compassion  upon  whom 
He  would,  and  hardened  whom  He  would."  Indeed,  a  "horrible 
abyss"!  —  although  on  the  one  side  a  compassionate  will  for  a 
few,  yet,  on  the  other,  a  will  of  rejection  and  hardening  for  equals 
among  equals!  How  diiiferent  the  doctrine  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord!  Election,  inasmuch  as  it  separates,  divides,  and  selects, 
consists  in  this  that  the  Father  "determined  to  save  no  one  except 
those  who  acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on 
Him."  Election,  therefore,  is  confined  to  those  who,  according 
TO  God's  foresight,  will  be  found  in  Christ  —  through  faith ;  to 
those  who  acknowledge  Christ  and  believe  in  Him.  The  essence 
of  the  decree  of  election  is  the  will  of  God:  I  will  grant  salvation 
for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merit  only  to  those  who  believe  in  Him. 
In  addition  to  the  extracts  given  above  we  cite  a  few  pas- 
sages from  Selnecker  on  this  all-important  point.  In  the  "Apol- 
ogy to  the  Book  of  Concord,"  which  he  published  in  company 
with  Chemnitz  and  Kirchner,  we  read,  p.  210:  "Nor  do  we  forget 
that  all  who  trvily  repent  are  chosen,  and  that  all  such  persons 
should  confidently  conclude  that  they  are  chosen  and  are  chil- 
dren of  God,  in  and  through  Christ  in  whom  they  believe.  For 
he  on  whom  God  bestows  eternal  life  through  faith  in  His  Son, 
John  3,  nmst  surely  be  chosen  and  be  a  child  of  God."  (John  3, 
86:   "He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life.") 


Aid/iors  of  the  FoDiiit/a  of   Concord.  229 

XVII. 

How  does  Sehiecker  in  his  large  Commentary  of  the  year 
1595  explain  the  words:  "Whom  He  did  foreknow,  He  also  did 
predestinate"? — "Whom  He  did  foreknow  (praescivit,  .pro-egno) : 
did  foresee  (praevidit)  according  to  His  immeasurable  wisdom, 
viewed  in  advance  (prospexit)  from  eternity  and  approved.- — 
He  also  did  predestinate:  pro-orise,  defined  in  advance  (praefiniit), 
established,  ordained.  He  determined  and  established  them  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  entered  them  in  the  album 
of  His  fatherly  grace  as  having  been  taken  out  of  the  mass  of 
mortals  destined  to  eternal  death,  separated  and  chosen  as  God's 
colony.  Eph.  1:  He  ordained  us  as  persons  whom  He  would 
adopt  as  children.  If  now  we  ask:  Where,  whence,  and  in  what 
manner  this  foreordination  is  to  be  sought  and  obtained,  Paul 
replies:  In  Christ!  For  God  the  Father  predestinated  them  as 
being  conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son.  Beyond  Christ,  and 
without  Christ,  and  without  being  planted  into  Christ,  and  with- 
out faith  in  Him  there  is  no  foreordination  and  election  unto  sal- 
vation. The  only  Son  of  God,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  the 
Father,  became  man,  the  first-born  among  many  brethren,  in 
regard  to  cross  and  affliction  as  well  as  in  regard  to  resurrec- 
tion and  glorification.  .  .  .  This  shows  that  the  godly  can 
easily  answer  the  question:  What  is  foreordination?  It  is  sim- 
ply our  fraternal  relation  to  Christ,  the  Savior;  or  as  the  Syriac 
translation  has  it :  The  sealing  wherewith  God  the  Father  sealed 
us  in  His  incarnate  Son,  and  ordained  us  to  salvation  according 
to  an  agreement  made  with  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  we 
are  told:  He  that  believeth  in  the  Son  hath  eternal  life.  There- 
fore Paul  declares:  'Whom  He  did  predestinate,  them  He  also 
called,'  i.  e.  through  the  office  of  the  Gospel,  that  they  might  be 
converted  to  Christ."  (Page  177.)  "Every  man  who  is  called 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  who  believes  in  Christ  and  submits 
himself  to  His  Word,  is  foreordained  and  chosen  of  God  unto 
eternal  salvation.  He  that  believes  in  the  Son  hath  eternal  life, 
i.  e.  is  predestinated." 

XVIII. 

How  does  Selnecker  explain  the  words:  "Therefore  hath 
He  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  He  will  He 
hardeneth"? — He  says:     "A  new  objection  is  here  (Rom.  9,  14- 


230  Intuitu  Fidei. 

18)  raised :  If  we  are  saved  by  grace  alone,  why  are  not  all  saved, 
why  are  many  lost  and  wholly  rejected?  Is  God  an  unjust  God, 
awarding  to  equals  unequal  judgment?  Paul  answers:  God 
forbid  that  a  godly  man  should  entertain  this  thought  and  in- 
ference; and  God  be  praised  for  the  grace  of  which  we  are  made 
partakers  in  Christ.  It  is  enough  to  know  that  no  work  of  ours, 
no  merit,  no  human  desire,  zeal,  or  anything  of  the  kind,  aids  us 
in  the  least  in  obtaining  salvation,  but  only  God's  grace  and  fath- 
erly mercy,  which  is  granted  to  us  who  believe  in  Him,  through 
Christ,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  Son  and  Mediator,  by  the  good 
pleasure  and  free  will  and  goodness  of  God  alone;  as  it  is  written: 
I  will  be  gracious  to  whom  I  will  be  gracious,  and  will  have  mercy 
on  whom  I  will  have  mercy,  i.  e.  with  the  tenderest  compassion 
of  a  father's  love.  But  this  will  of  God,  this  n^ercy  and  com- 
passion of  love,  became  known  openly  in  the  Son  of  God.  He 
that  believeth  in  Him  hath  eternal  life,  out  of  God's  pure  mercy. 
By  a  correct  inference  from  all  this,  and  as  an  antithesis  to  it  all, 
it  is  likewise  certain  that  all  who  do  not  believe  are  judged  and 
damned,  and  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  upon  them;  and  yet  He 
doth  not  desrre  the  death  of  a  sinner,  but  that  the  wicked  may 
turn  from  his  way  and  live;  He  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved 
and  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth ;  He  is  long-sufTering,  and 
will  have  none  to  be  lost,  but  all  should  return  to  repentance. 
As  many  th.en  as  are  lost  and  damned  are  lost  not  through  any 
fault  of  God,  but  by  their  own  fault,  according  to  God's  just  judg- 
ment; as  it  is  written:  'Righteous  art  Thou,  O  Lord,  and  upright 
are  Thy  judgments.'  'O  Lord,  righteousness  belongeth  to  Thee; 
but  unto  us  confusion  of  face.'  '()  Israel,  thou  hast  destroyed 
thyself;  but  in  me  is  thine  help.'  Men,  however,  are  now  lost 
not  because  they  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin.  For  in  this  re- 
spect, since  all  men  are  alike,  they  are  all  without  exception  b\  na- 
ture children  of  wrath,  and  one  and  all  deservedly  under  the  judg- 
ment and  eternal  condemnation  of  God.  They  are  lost  because 
they  reject  and  will  not  hear  God  who  desires  to  have  mercy  upon 
them,  to  bring  them  back  to  the  right  way,  to  advise,  assist,  and 
offer  them  His  fatherly  hand.  As  far  as  original  sin  is  concerned, 
God  could  reject  all  mankind;  but  now  He  is  moved  by  His 
mercy  and  the  mediatorial  work  of  His  Son,  and  proclaims  that 
His  paternal  heart  is  reconciled  toward  the  human  race.  He  de- 
clares that  He  will  not  remember  our  sins,  or  go  into  judgment 
with  us,  if  only  we  will  look  upon  the  seed  of  the  woman,  who 


Authors  oj  the  Foininila  of  Concord.  231 

bruised  the  serpent's  head,  bringing  us  the  blessing,  if  only  we 
will  embrace  Him  by  faith  and  subject  ourselves  to  His  Word. 
This  is  medicine  for  our  ills ;  this  is  deliverance  from  the  wrath  of 
God,  from  judgment  and  condemnation.  This  assurance  is 
sealed  by  an  eternal,  invincible,  and  unmovable  purpose  of  God. 
This  is  the  book  of  life  in  which  the  names  of  the  elect  are  written, 
namely  Christ  Himself,  whom  the  Father  has  sealed,  and  us  in 
Him,  i.  e.  chosen  us,  receiving  us  unto  sonship,  and  saving  us; 
as  it  is  written:  'As  many  as  received  Him  to  them  gave  He 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on 
His  name.'  But  as  many  as  despise  this  decree  of  God,  this 
mercy  of  God,  and  this  book  of  life,  i.  e.  Christ,  these  blessings 
and  merits  of  Christ,  and  God's  fatherhand,  and  His  most  gra- 
cious will,  are  completely  and  most  justly  rejected  from  God's 
countenance  and  eternally  condemned.  And  this  not  merely  on 
account  of  the  guilt  of  original  sin  in  which  they  were  conceived 
and  born,  as  by  nature  children  of  wrath  and  eternal  pain;  nor 
merely  on  account  of  their  actual  or  moral  sins,  which  all  God 
would  have  forgiven  them  in  His  mercy  and  grace  for  the  sake 
of  Christ,  if  they  had  not  refused  to  hear  and  receive  God,  the 
Physician  and  Savior,  who  Himself  offered  to  save  mankind. 
They  are  rejected  and  condemned  because  they  despised  the  Sa- 
vior to  the  end,  refused  and  rejected  the  grace  of  God  and  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit."     (Page  100.) 

XIX. 

''From  the  revealed  will  of  God,  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Gos- 
pel concerning  Christ  we  conclude  correctly  in  regard  to  foreor- 
dination:  All  who  believe  in  the  Son  are  foreordained,  i.  e.  they 
have  eternal  life.  This  is  the  voice  of  the  Gospel,  which  must 
constitute  the  starting  point,  in  which  we  must  rest  tranquil  and 
content,  and  to  which  we  must  cling  fast  till  death,  or  till  our 
final  redemption.  And  when  we  are  transferred  from  this  world 
into  the  glory  of  the  heavenly  life,  as  it  is  written:  'I  will  that 
they  also,  whom  Thou  hast  given  me,  be  with  me,'  then  we  will 
discuss  perfectly,  completely,  thoroughly,  and  without  further 
searching  the  eternal  and  secret  counsels  of  God  and  the  whole 
order  of  causes,  and  attain  eternal  certainty.  For  the  present 
it  is  sufficient  that  we  firmly  trust  the  revealed  will  of  God  in  the 
Word  and  in  the  use  of  the  Sacraments,  for  we  know  that  it  is 


232  Intuitu  Fidci. 

identical  with  the  eternal,  secret  will  which  is  hidden  from  the  wise 
of  this  world." 

Query:  "Is  then  the  doctrine  of  foreordination  unto  eternal 
life,  and  the  doctrine  of  man's  justification  before  God,  one  and 
the  same  doctrine?"  Answer:  "It  is  altogether  the  same.  There 
is  no  cause  of  foreordination,  which  is  not  equally  a  cause  of  justi- 
fication. It  is  for  this  reason  that  Paul  establishes  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  grace  through  the  doctrine  of  foreordination.* 
There  is  here  no  difference,  except  that  foreordination  refers  to 
the  eternal  will  and  good  Dleasure  of  God,  which  was  unknown 
to  all  creatures,  whilst  the  doctrine  of  justification  refers  to  the 
revelation  of  this  eternal  and  hidden  will,  which  has  taken  place 
through  the  Son."     (Page  205.) 

XX. 

"Is  it  possible  in  this  life  in  any  way  to  think  or  treat  of  the 
eternal  order  of  causes  which  God  in  eternity  considered  in  the 
election  and  the  reprobation  of  men?"  Answer:  "If  Christ  and 
the  Word  of  Christ  are  in  the  heart  and  on  the  lips  and  constantly 
before  our  eyes,  then  we  may  safely  and  without  danger  treat  of 
the  order  of  causes.  And  this  will  be  the  manner,  according 
to  the  Scriptures :  Gc  J,  according  to  His  eternal  and  unspeak- 
able purpose,  resolved,  in  His  eternal  goodness,  to  make  known 
His  glory;  and  therefore,  according  to  the  resolution  taken  in 
the  counsel  of  the  eternal  Trinity,  He  created  the  human  race  in 
His  image,  in  holiness  and  righteousness,  so  that  it  should  be 
and  remain  forever  and  should  live  eternally  without  anything  to 
trouble  it. 

Then,  however,  God  (to  whom  nothing  is  unknown  or  not 
yet  present,  even  if  it  is  still  future  and  has  not  yet  taken  place) 


*  How  does  Missouri  agree  with  Selnecker  in  the  question  on  the 
harmonious  similarity  of  these  two  doctrines,  i.  e.  of  election  and  of  justi- 
fication? —  Answer:  Sehiecker  declares,  it  is  one  and  the  same  doctrine; 
and  there  is  no  cause  in  foreordination  which  is  not  likewise  a  cause  in 
justification  (e.  g.  Christ's  merit  embraced  by  faith);  and  the  one  doctrine 
can  be  established  through  the  other  (especially  as  regards  these  three 
cardinal  points  and  their  mutual  relation  to  each  other:  by  grace,  in 
Christ,  through  faith).  —  But  Missouri  declares  it  to  be  the  proton  pseudos 
(the  fundamental  error)  of  its  opponents,  that  they  assume  such  an  analogy 
or  similarity  between  the  two  doctrines,  and  offer  to  make  logical  deduc- 
tions from  the  one  in  regard  to  the  other.  —  [This  note  occurs  in  the  text 
of  the  "Institutu  Fidel"  as  printed  in  1883.  —  Translator.] 


Aiithors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  283' 

foresaw  the  wickedness  of  Satan,  who  would  rebel  against  God, 
and  corrupt  the  human  race,  so  that  with  all  its  descendents  it 
would  fall  under  the  judgment  of  God.  Yet,  in  His  eternal,  espec- 
ial, hidden,  divine,  and  inscrutable  counsel,  He  did  not  at  once 
prevent  the  wickedness  of  His  enemy  and  the  fall  and  guilt  of 
man.  But  He  left  Satan  to  his  wickedness,  and  permitted  him 
to  be  carried  away  by  it,  and  as  the  almighty  Lord,  observing 
what  His  godless  and  impotent  enemy  contemplated,  did  not  at 
once  oppose  him,  knowing  well  how  and  when,  for  the  glory  of 
His  name,  He  would  subdue  and  destroy  the  accursed  foe. 

Having  taken  counsel  with  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  He 
decreed  the  eternal  destruction  of  the  enemy.  But,  moved  by  His 
Son  (through  whom  and  on  account  of  whom  all  things  are  cre- 
ated) as  the  one  Mediator,  He  did  not  let  the  whole  human  race 
perish.  He  willed  that  the  Son  should  become  flesh,  and  be  fore- 
ordained according  to  the  flesh  unto  perfect  innocence,  purity, 
inviolability,  holiness  and  righteousness  and  unto  eternal  life, 
and  eternal  salvation,  joy  and  glory;  and  that  He  should  be  at 
the  same  time  a  ransom  and  a  reconciliation  between  God  and 
men.  And  this  in  order  that  all  who  believe  in  Him  might  take 
of  His  fulness,  and  that  all  whom  God  beheld  in  Him  might  in 
Him  be  foreordained  to  eternal  life;  but  that  all  should  be  re- 
jected and  damned,  who  were  outside  of  Christ,  that  is  without 
faith  in  Christ  (ita,  ut  ex  plenitudine  ipsius  acciperent  omnes  in 
eum  credentes,et  praedestinarentur  in  ipso  ad  vitam  aeternam, 
quoscunque  Deus  in  ipso  intueretur,*  econtra  rejicerentur  et 
damnarentur  onmes,  qui  extra  Christum  essent,  id  est,  sine  lide 
in  Christum). 

This  His  secret  will  God  revealed  through  His  Son,  who 
is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  and  established  means  for  enkind- 
ling and  confirming  faith  in  Christ,  the  Holy  Ghost  being  the 
originator  and  mover.     He,  therefore,  resolved  to  gather  and 


*  Quoscunque  in  Christo  intueretur!  !  God  chose  in  Christ  those  only 
whom  He  beheld  in  Christ!  And  did  He  behold  them  in  Christ  as  long  as 
they  were  not  through  faith  in  Him,  but  without  faith  still  outside  of  Him? 
Selnecker  most  decidedly  teaches  a  foreordination  unto  life  in  view  of  com- 
munion through  faith  with  Christ,  in  view  of  membership  in  His  body. 
"Quoscunque  in  Christo  intueretur"  is  in  substance  precisely  the  same  as 
intuitu  fidei.  Note  also  how  Selnecker  makes  the  "separation  of4)ersons" 
depend  on  faith  and  unbelief.  —  [This  note  also  m  the  text  of  '8-3.  —  Trans- 
lator.] 


l!34  Intuitu  Fidei. 

maintain  a  visible  church  before  the  eyes  of  the  whole  human 
race,  in  which  His  voice  would  be  heard,  saying:  This  is  my 
beloved  Son,  hear  ye  Him. 

Those,  who  do  hear  Him,  and  do  not  despise,  neglect,  de- 
preciate the  means,  the  Word  of  the  Gospel  and  the  use  of  the 
Sacraments,  or  esteem  them  below  transient  earthly  things,  but 
humbly  learn,  hear,  and  prize  them,  will  receive  of  God  the  gift 
of  true  faith  in  Christ,  as  also  the  Holy  Spirit  and  eternal  life. 
And  He  forsakes  no  one  who  earnestly  concerns  himself  about  the 
means  God  proposed,  but  opens  to  him  the  Scriptures  and  his 
heart,  and  desires  that  he  may  belong  to  the  number  of  those  fore- 
ordained to  eternal  life,  i.  e.  of  those  justified  through  faith  in 
Christ.  The  rest,  however,  who  despise  or  depreciate  the  means, 
and  do  not  strive  after  Christian  godliness.  He  declares  to  be  un- 
believers, impenitent,  hardened,  godless,  reprobate,  vessels  of 
wrath,  fitted  unto  damnation,  not  through  any  fault  of  God,  but 
by  their  own  fault. 

So  much  we  can  and  must  say  concerning  the  order  of  causes 
in  the  doctrine  of  foreordination  on  the  basis  of  the  Scriptures. 
But  whatever  is  above  and  beyond  this  is  not  to  be  searched  out 
in  this  life,  but  remains  for  the  high-school  above.  It  is  enough 
for  us  to  know  in  what  nianner  we  are  justified,  absolved  of  sin, 
received  unto  sonship,  i.  e.  foreordained  and  elected  unto  eternal 
life  and  salvation."     (Page  206.) 

XXI. 

"The  sum  of  this  doctrine  (predestination)  is  the  follovvdng: 
All  those  who  live  and  die  believing  in  Christ,  the  Savior,  Re- 
deemer, Mediator,  and  Justifier,  are  the  foreseen  (praevisi), 
chosen,  designated,*  called,  justified,  and  ordained  unto  eternal 
glory  and  salvation,  through  the  Son,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  Son, 
by  the  mere  kindness,  mercy,  goodness,  and  love  of  God;  as  it 
has  been  well  said:  God  gives,  Christ  merits  or  ordains,  the 
Holy  Spirit  seals  and  confirms,  faith  grasps,  and  good  work  tes- 
tifies. On  the  other  hand,  all  who  either  live  or  die  without  faith 
in  God's  Son  are  reprobate  and  damned,  canceled  from  the  book 
of  life  and  the  record  of  the  justified;  not  through  fault  of  God, 


*  "Designati."  The  Romans  gave  this  title  of  honor  to  those  chosen 
for  an  office,  prior  to  their  actually  assuming  it.  An  unborn  child  was 
likewise  called  a  civis  designatus.  a  future  citizen. 


Authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  235 

who  surely  created  no  man  for  destructicn,  considering  the  conn- 
sel  of  creation;  but  because  they  did  not  beUeve  in  the  only  be- 
gotten Son;  as  it  is  written:  Whosoever  believeth  not  in  the  Son 
is  condemned  already,  and  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him." 
(Com.  in  Genesin,  p.  127.) 

"The  revealed  will  of  God  is  that  which  shows  us  through 
the  Word  whom  He  has  ordained  to  salvation,  who  He  desires 
shall  live  and  be  rescued,  i.  e.  all  who  believe  in  the  Son;  and 
shows  us  likewise  who  shall  be  condemned  in  His  just  judgment, 
i.  e.  all  who  do  not  believe  in  the  Son."     (Inst.,  p.  ?>-45.) 

"We  follow  the  Word  in  judging  of  the  election,  life,  anl  sal- 
vation of  those  who  believe,  and  of  the  damnation  of  the  godless." 
(Ibid.,  p.  347.) 

"It  is  necessary  to  have  certainty  and  a  good  foundation  in 
the  doctrine  concerning  the  mode  of  revealed  election  or  predesti- 
nation, as  the  Gospel  states  this  mode,  assuring  us  that  all  who 
believe  in  the  Son  have  eternal  life,  i.  e.  are  predestinated,  and 
all  who  do  not  lielievc  are  already  reprol)ate  and  damned."  (lb., 
par.  2,  p.  114.) 

"The  sum  of  this  doctrine  is,  that  all  who  live  and  die  believ- 
ing in  Christ  the  Savior,  Redeemer,  Mediator,  and  Justifier  are 
those  whom  God  has  foreseen  (praevisi),  the  elect,  designated, 
called,  justified,  and  ordained  unto  glory,  life,  and  salvation, 
through  the  Son,  and  for  His  sake,  by  the  mere  kindness,  mercy 
and  love  of  God."     (lb.,  p.  325.) 

"The  external  election  of  the  Father  reposes  in  Christ  and 
must  be  sought  in  Him;  the  Father  has  determined  in  His  eter- 
nal counsel  as  revealed  to  us  that  He  will  save  none  save  those 
who  acknowledge  the  Son,  the  Immanuel  and  God-man,  as  be- 
lievers."    (Thesis  1(5.) 

XXII. 

"Why  does  Christ  say:  Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen? 
This  is  no  contradiction ;  nor  does  He  mean  that  God  called  such 
as  He  did  not  at  all  want  in  the  number  of  the  elect,  such  as  He 
wanted  to  be  damned.  For  God  is  not  the  one  to  say  one  thing 
in  words,  and  mean  another  in  His  heart;  but  it  is  His  will  that 
repentance  be  preached  and  forgiveness  of  sin  be  promised  uni- 
versally. But  the  reason  for  many  being  called  and  but  few 
chosen  is  given  in  Acts  13,  46:  'Ye  put  the  Word  from  you  and 
judge  yourselves  unworthy  of  everlasting  life.'     And  Acts  7,  51: 


236  Iiifidfu  Fidei. 

'Ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost.'  God  thus  shows  that  He 
would  have  the  Word  of  the  Son  heard,  through  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  works  and  gives  power  to  believe  and  keep  the  Word. 
But  those  who  do  not  hear  the  Word,  nor  care  for  it,  who  despise, 
disregard,  and  resist  it,  are  not  among  the  elect,  although  they 
are  among  the  called.  God's  election,  how^ever,  is  not  the  cause 
of  this;  His  election,  considered  antecedently,  according  to  the 
unconditioned  will  and  the  unconditioned  grace  of  God,  is  just  as 
universal  as  the  promise  and  the  call.*  The  cause  is  man's  per- 
verted will,  turning  against  God,  and  refusing  with  intentional 
wickedness  to  permit  or  suffer  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
He  would  perform  through  the  Word,  stubbornly  rejecting  this 
work  by  wanton  resistance,  and  fighting  against  it.  Few,  there- 
fore, are  chosen,  that  is  ultimately  (finaliter),  subsequently  (a  pos- 
teriori), as  regards  the  final  outcome  (ab  eventu),  because  of 
man's  wickedness  and  guilt.  This  is  the  common  answer." 
(Comm.,  p.  226.)  This  exposition  is  confirmed  by  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  Epitome,  §  9-12;  Declaratio,  §  34-42;  and  even  by 
Luther  already  in  his  Hauspostille.  But  why  is  Missouri  bent 
on  evading  and  resisting  this  fundamental  passage  from  the  lips  of 
the  Savior? 


*  Quae  a  priori  considerata,  quod  ad  absolutam  Dei  voluntatem  et 
gratiam  attinet,  aeque  universalis  est  ac  promisso  et  vocatio.  This  passage 
is  of  great  importance  for  the  correct  understanduig  of  the  F.  C.  when  it 
declares:  "All  men  should  seek  election  in  Christ":  and  when  it  tells  us 
that  election  is  "proclaimed"  in  words  like  these:  Repent  and  believe  the 
Gospel.  —  Selnecker  here  calls  the  "antecedent"  will  God's  "uncondi- 
tional" will,  as  distinguished  from  the  "subsequent"  or  conditioned  will. 
According  to  the  former  God  wants  all  to  believe  and  be  saved;  according 
to  the  latter  He  wants  to  give  salvation  actually  only  to  those  who  believe 
in  time  and  die  in  Christ 


B.     ORIGINAL  SUBSCRIBERS  AND  DEFENDERS  OF 
THE  FORMULA  OF  CONCORD. 


/EGIDIUS  HUNNIUS. 

^g.  Hunniiis:  "No  cause  of  justification  and  salvation 
dare  be  found  or  placed  in  man.  Even  faith  in  Christ,  although 
in  us,  is  not  a  cause  either  of  justification  or  of  salvation  for  the 
reason  that  it  is  in  us.  but  only  in  so  far  as  it  apprehends  Jesus 
Christ  in  His  worthy  obedience  and  most  holy  merit  outside  of 
us.  And  far  less  dare  faith  be  considered  a  cause  of  our  predes- 
tination, as  though  it  constituted  a  certain  quality  in  us  or  a  virtue, 
the  dignity  and  worthiness  of  which  moved  God  to  choose  us 
unto  salvation.  God  forbid!  When  I  and  a  number  of  others 
reckon  faith  among  the  causes  of  predestination,  we  have  added 
the  explicit  explanation,  that  this  is  to  be  understood  of  faith 
only  inasmuch  as  it  is  based  on  Christ  Jesus,  the  rock  of  our  elec- 
tion unto  life,  and  only  inasmuch  as  it  relies  on  the  merit  of  His 
bitter  sufiferings  and  death.  And  we  have  stated  still  further, 
that  this  form  of  expression  simply  means  to  say:  Christ  appre- 
hended by  faith  is  a  cause  of  our  election.  And  this  amounts  to 
exactly  the  same  thing  as  in  the  article  of  justification  before  God; 
when  faith  is  there  termed  a  cause,  and  when  it  is  said  of  faith 
that  it  justifies  and  saves  us,  this  is  understood,  according  to  the 
exposition  of  all  Christian  teachers,  as  saying:  Christ  appre- 
hended by  faith  is  the  cause  of  our  justification  before  God,  and 
of  our  eternal  salvation."  (Writing  against  Dan.  Hoffmann,  p. 
51.*) 

"God  in  eternity  did  not  look  to  anything  anywhere,  outside 


*  This  notorious  disturber  of  the  peace,  known  on  account  of  his  re- 
jection of  Philosophy  as  "a  work  of  Satan  and  the  flesh"  (Walch,  Vol.  1, 
173)  had  assailed  the  Intuitu  Fidei.  As  a  true  forerunner  of  Missouri  he 
wrote:  "To  be  sure,  God  in  eternity  saw  the  faith  of  His  elect,  but  that 
faith  only  which  His  election  would  produce.  He  would  not  see  a  faith 
emanating  from  us  rind  constituting  a  cause  of  predestination,  for  the 
reason  that  such  a  cause  would  interfere  with  a  pure  election."  In  the 
margin  we  read:  "God  would  see  no  faith  but  that  which  His  election 
should  produce"  (Apology,  p.  60). 


288  hituihi  Fidei. 

of  Christ,  on  account  of  which  He  might  elect  man  to  salvation; 
in  the  same  way  as,  in  justification  and  in  the  bestowal  of  salva- 
tion, He  regards  nothing  whatever  for  which  He  might  justify 
and  save  a  man  —  nothing  whatever  save  Christ  alone,  for  out- 
side of  Christ  there  is  no  salvation,  and  no  other  name  under 
heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we  may  be  saved.  But  God 
does  regard  Christ,  both  in  the  execution  of  His  eternal  purpose, 
i.  e.  in  justification  and  in  bestowing  salvation;  and  also  in  the 
eternal  purpose  itself,  i.  e.  in  His  eternal  predestination.  God, 
however,  regards  Christ  not  merely  as  having  alone  rendered 
complete  satisfaction  for  man;  because,  this  satisfaction,  having 
been  rendered  for  all  alike,  all  would  then  be  chosen  from  eternity 
and  justified  and  saved  in  time.  God  also  regards  Christ  as  the 
beginner  and  finisher  of  our  salvation,  inquiring  therefore  also 
whether  He  is  recognized  by  faith  unto  salvation."  (Refutation 
of  Hoffmann,  p.  40.) 

"We  deny  that  God  was  impelled  by  the  worthiness  or  ex- 
cellence of  our  faith  to  institute  our  election.  We  know  that  faith 
in  and  for  itself,  like  every  other  virtue,  is  full  of  manifold  im- 
perfections. And  yet,  after  thus  denying  to  faith  any  merit  what- 
ever in  our  election,  we  teach  explicitly  that  God  did  foresee  a 
certain  cause,  or  rather  that  He  saw  and  had  such  a  cause,  im- 
pelling Him  to  elect  us,  namely  His  mercy  and  the  sacrificiaf 
offering  of  His  Son;  and,  therefore.  He  chose  us  by  grace,  in  the 
death  of  His  Son  which  is  imputed  to  us  through  faith.  If,  there- 
fore, \\e  say  that  the  word  'by  grace"  excludes  completely  every 
impelling  cause,  there  will  likewise  be  nothing  whatever  left  in 
justification  impelling  God  to  justify  us,  save  only  His  mere  will. 
Consequently,  Christ  and  His  merit  will  be  ejected  from  the  most 
holy  forum  of  our  justification.  But  if  we  are  justified  by  grace, 
and  none  the  less  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merit  as  embraced  by 
faith ;  —  if  we  are  saved  by  grace,  and  yet  for  the  sake  of  Christ's 
merit  as  embraced  by  faith;  —  why  then  should  God  be  unable 
in  election  also,  to  elect  us  by  grace,  and  at  the  same  time  also 
for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of  Christ  whom  we  will  embrace  by  faith? 
■ — The  bal)ble  of  Tossanus"  (the  Calvinist  against  whom  Hunnius 
IS  writing)  "a1)out  worthiness  is  foolish  and  childish.  Certainly, 
we  were  not  chosen  without  any  worthiness  whatever,  but  on  ac- 
count of  the  perfect  worthiness  of  the  merit  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  And  when  faith  embraces  and  holds  this  merit,  it  relies 
on  no  worthiness  of  its  own,  whether  it  be  in  the  mvstery  of  elec- 


Original  Subscribers  and  Defenders,  Etc.  239' 

tion  or  in  the  article  of  justification;  it  merely  relies  as  already 
stated,  on  the  worthiness  of  Christ's  obedience.  In  this  sense 
we  read  of  those  who  believe  and  are  chosen:  They  'may  be 
counted  worthy  of  the  kingdom  of  God,'  2  Thess.  1,  5;  'they  shall 
walk  with  Christ  in  white,  for  they  are  worthy,'  Rev.  3,  4.  So 
then  God  is  moved  to  predestinate,  to  justify,  to  save,  by  no 
worthiness  of  our  own,  inhering  in  our  own  being,  but  only  by 
the  worthiness  of  the  Savior,  which  we  must  embrace  by  faith. 

Our  appeal  to  justification  Tossanus*  finds  a  thorn  in  the 
eye.  He  sees  well  enough  that  this  appeal  strangles  with  irre- 
sistible power  the  arguments  he  advanced  so  viciously  against 
foreseen  faith  in  Christ.  And  since  he  is  unable  to  reply,  he  seeks 
refuge  in  deceit  by  declaring:  "As  far  as  this  appeal  to  justifi- 
cation is  concerned,  w^hich  is  said  to  be  by  grace,  although  we 
teach  that  we  are  justified  by  faith,  w^e  reply,  in  the  first  place,  that 
the  Scriptures  nowhere  say  that  we  are  chosen  for  the  sake  of 
foreseen  faith.'  So  far  Tossanus.  I  answer:  Neither  the  Scrip- 
tures, nor  Hunnius  says  so,  but  only  Tossanus  himself,  who 
slanderously  attributes  this  statement  to  Hunnius;  and,  having 
already  been  taken  to  task  for  it,  he  now  acts  against  his  own 
better  knowledge.  Since  the  answer  of  Tossanus  rests  on  a  falsi- 
fication, it  falls  to  pieces  of  its  own  accord." 

"Tossanus  adds:  'The  Scriptures  teach  that  we  are  chosen, 
not  merely  before  we  believed,  but  even  before  we  were  born.' 
I  answer:  This  argument  certainly  moves  us  strongly,  just  as 
it  did  St.  Augustine,  to  teach  that  election  is  by  the  grace  of  Him 
who  calls  us,  according  to  His  purpose.  Furthermore,  it  moves 
us  to  declare  that  God  has  received  us  unto  adoption  in  Himself, 
thus  excluding  the  Pelagian  idea,  the  merit  of  our  own  works 
(not,  however,  Christ's  merit,  which  faith  alone  is  to  embrace). 
Now  it  is  silly  for  Tossanus  to  use  the  above  remark  for  the  pur- 
pose of  banishing  faith,  which  embraces  Jesus  Christ,  from  the 
eternal  purpose  of  divine  foreordination.  Did  not  God  choose 
us  before  the  Son  was  sent  into  the  world  and  before  He  suffered 
and  died  for  our  sins?  Yet  we  do  not  conclude  that  our  election 
is  not  based  on  Christ's  sufifering  and  death.  That  would  con- 
tradict the  clearest  testimony  of  St.  Paul,  Eph.  1,  4:  'He  hath 
chosen  us  in  Him,'  i.  e.  Christ.     Now,  the  death  of  God's  Son 


*  Like  the  Missouri  Neo-Lutherans.  who  bravely  blow  the  same  trum- 
pet as  the  Calvinists  on  this  entire  question,  and  have  never  a  word  to 
say  in  reply  to  full  elucidations  of  this  point  concerning  justification. 


240  Intuitu  Fidei. 

without  considering  its  imputation  to  us,  which  takes  place 
through  faith,  is  of  no  use,  either  toward  salvation  itself,  or  toward 
election  unto  salvation.  Therefore,  it  is  impossible  to  eject  faith 
from  election,  unless  Christ  Himself  who  is  held  fast  by  the  arms 
of  faith  is  likewise  to  be  ejected.  St.  Paul  has  a  more  correct 
viev/;  he  teaches  both  explicitly,  that  we  are  chosen  in  Christ, 
Eph.  1.  and  that  God  chose  us  from  the  beginning  (i.  e.  from  eter- 
nity) in  faith,  2  Thess,  2,  13.  Accordingly,  God  from  the  be- 
ginning, from  eternity  when  He  chose  us,  had  regard  to  faith, 
nor  in  so  far  as  faith  in  itself  may  be  estimated  and  valued,  but 
in  so  far  as  it  is  based  solely  upon  Christ  Jesus,  the  one  founda- 
tion of  saving  election."  (Preface  to  the  Tract  on  Predestina- 
tion, p.  8.) 

"The  Scriptures  throughout  base  the  eternal  counsel  and 
purpose  of  God's  election  unto  salvation  upon  Christ,  and  upon 
Him  not  merely  as  viewed  in  the  work  of  redemption,  but  as  He  is 
apprehended  by  faith.  In  Him  we  are  chosen  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world  was  laid,  Eph.  1.  Therefore,  he  who  has  this 
Christ,  he  it  is  that  is  foreseen  and  ordained  unto  eternal  life,  as 
it  is  written:  'He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life;  and  he  that  hath 
not  the  Son  of  God  hath  not  life,'  1  John  5,  12,  'but  the  wrath  of 
God  abideth  on  him,'  John  3,  36.  And  this  did  not  merely  come 
to  be  the  will  of  God  in  time,  as  though  it  had  pleased  Him  other- 
wise in  eternity.  That  would  be  inventing  a  mutable  God.  On 
the  contrary,  this  is  His  permanent  will  (also  in  the  purpose  of 
His  eternal  election),  that  whosoever  seeth  the  Son  and  believeth 
on  Him  shall  have  eternal  life,  John  6,  40.  In  regard  to  this 
passage  the  Book  of  Concord  declares  that  in  this  same  Christ 
our  eternal  election  unto  everlasting  life  is  proclaimed.  And 
again:  It  pleased  the  Lord  God  (most  certainly  in  His  eternal 
counsel  and  purpose)  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save 
them  that  believed,  1  Cor.  1,  21.  And  again:  God  hath  from 
the  beginning  (i.  e.  from  eternity)  chosen  you  to  salvation  in  sanc- 
tification  of  the  Spirit  and  in  behef  of  the  truth.  2  Thess.  2,  13. 
We  do  not  read:  He  hath  chosen  you  that  you  should  believe 
(as  though  you  were  chosen  in  any  case  whether  afterwards  you 
believed  or  not).  No,  we  read:  He  hath  chosen  you  in  faith; 
as  also  St.  James  writes:  Did  not  God  choose  the  poor  of  this 
world,  who  are  rich  in  faith?  Read  not:  He  hath  chosen  the 
poor  who  were  to  be  made  rich,  but  who  are  rich  in  fact."  (Refu- 
tation of  Huber,  p.  38.) 


^gidius  Hunnius.  241 

The  following  was  one  of  Ruber's  objections:  "If  God  had 
chosen  only  a  few  for  the  sake  of  Christ  unto  eternal  Hfe,  there 
would  have  to  be  some  cause  for  this  shortening  of  God's  grace 
in  Christ,  either  altogether  in  God's  pure  and  partial  will  toward 
man,  or  in  the  foreseen  work  and  faith  of  men,  placing  the  cause 
for  the  particularization  in  them."  To  this  Hunnius  replies: 
"Because  of  a  bad  conscience  Huber  dare  not  quote  our  view 
honestly,  as  it  really  stands.*  He  is  bound  to  bring  in  calumnies, 
to  lead  people  by.  the  nose,  so  that  they  may  the  less  perceive  the 
true  foundation  and  substance  of  our  doctrine.  How  well  does 
he  know  that  we  ascribe  neither  salvation  itself  nor  election  unto 
salvation  to  any  work  whatever!  But  he  is  determined  to  cast 
the  suspicion  of  papistic  error  upon  us,  so  he  mixes  in  works  here, 
as  he  already  brought  in  good  conductf  above,  claiming  that, 
according  to  our  doctrine,  because  of  these  works  God  made 
His  work  of  grace  particular.  Yet  he  knows  well  enough  that  in 
election  we  do  not  include  faith  in  so  far  as  it  in  itself  is  a  work, 
a  virtue  and  quality,  and  possesses  a  worthiness  of  its  own,  but 
only  in  so  far  as  faith  embraces  Christ,  in  whom  God's  eternal 
election  is  ordered.  Compare  the  article  concerning  the  justi- 
fication of  a  sinner  before  God,  where  faith  justifies  and  saves 
man  only  through  the  imputed  worthiness  of  Jesus  Christ.  There- 
fore, when  inquiry  is  made  as  to  the  cause  moving  God  to  elect 
us,  we  do  not  point  people  to  our  faith  simply,  but  to  Christ  whom 
our  faith  embraces,  whose  merits  and  blessings  our  faith  takes 
and  makes  its  own."     (Page  83.) 

"Predestination  is  not  absolute,  it  is  ordered  in  Christ,  in 
whom  it  took  place,  Eph.  1.  We  are  not  chosen  for  the  sake 
of  our  faith,  just  as  we  are  not  justified  for  the  sake  of  our  faith, 
but  through  faith.  And  yet  because  Christ,  outside  of  (extra) 
whom  election  could  not  take  place,  is  of  no  use  to  us  without 
faith,  because  His  merit  can  be  appropriated  by  us  through  faith 

*  This  applies  fully  to  the  Missourians;  they  know  no  better  than  to 
revile  our  doctrine,  as  though  we  turned  faith  into  a  work,  a  performance, 
a  virtue,  a  piece  of  good  conduct,  etc. 

t  Huber  had  written:  "There  is  no  doubt  that  God  knows  all  things, 
and  we  need  no  proof  for  it.  But  the  question  is  whether  God  withdrew 
His  actum  or  work  of  grace  because  of  the  future  good  or  bad  conduct  of 
men,  and  made  His  work  particular.  This  is  the  thing  for  them  to  prove." 
Then  too  Huber  often  accused  the  Wittenbergers  of  Pelagianism,  because, 
as  he  supposed,  they  made  election  dependent  upon  a  certain  good  conduct 
on  the  part  of  man. 


242  Intuitu  Fidei. 

alone,  therefore,  it  is  plain  that  the  consideration  of  faith  cannot 
be  altogether  excluded  from  the  mystery  of  predestination.  For 
as  the  apostle  testifies  in  Heb.  11,  it  is  impossible  for  man  without 
faith  to  please  God,  to  say  nothing  of  so  pleasing  Him,  with  that 
especial,  intimate  love,  as  to  be  chosen  unto  eternal  Hfe.  This 
especial  love  towards  sinners  cannot  stand  without  taking  certain 
regard  to  Christ's  satisfaction,  not  merely  as  He  wrought  it  out 
for  sinners,  but  as  it  is  apprehended  by  faith.  For  as  God,  be- 
cause of  His  immutable  righteousness,  could  neither  choose  sin- 
ful man  nor  love  him  (with  this  especial  love),  without  looking 
to  the  Redeemer  whose  ransom  satisfied  His  righteousness,  so 
also  this  ransom  remains  alien"  (not  appropriated  nor  imputed) 
"without  the  hand  of  faith."     (Disp.  Marpurg.  1,  p.  110.) 

-  "God's  election  or  foreordination  unto  eternal  life  is  not 
absolute,  either  in  respect  to  a  few  or  in  respect  to  all,  as  though 
God  had  chosen  either  all  or  a  few  without  regard  to  Christ,  whom 
faith  must  know.  His  election  is  based  on  Christ,  and  is  so  or- 
dered by  reason  of  its  means  and  the  order  of  its  means,  that  all 
who  submit  to  this  order  (huic  taxei  se  submittunt)  belong  to  the 
number  of  those  foreordained  unto  eternal  life,  while  all  others 
are  excluded  from  this  number,  not  by  the  absolute  will  of  God, 
but  by  their  own  unbelief  and  final  impenitence. 

Query:  What  is  this  order?  —  Answer:  As  God  in  eternity 
resolved  to  ordain  men  unto  eternal  life,  so  also  He  established 
means,  and  in  His  eternal  counsel  fixed  an  entire  course  [or 
order]  for  restoring  man  and  bringing  him  to  salvation.  He 
sent  the  Son  to  suffer  for  the  sins  of  the  entire  world,  so  that 
whosoever  believes  in  this  Redeemer  of  the  world,  and  by  faith 
embraces  His  merit  as  offered  in  the  Gospel,  shall  not  perish, 
but  have  everlasting  life.  This  entire  order  must  be  included 
in  God's  decree  of  election,  and  dare  nevermore  be  removed  or 
separated  from  it. 

Query:  Certainly,  I  believe  that  Christ  must  enter  into  the 
mystery  of  predestination,  because  He  Himself  has  chosen  us 
(John  13  and  15),  and  because  we  are  chosen  in  Him  (Eph.  1). 
But  I  would  like  to  see  proof  for  including  faith  in  Christ  in 
the  decree  of  election.  —  Answer:  That  you  may  understand 
aright  in  what  sense  faith  is  said  to  enter  into  the  mystery  of 
election,  I  beg  you  to  remember  that  it  enters  into  this  mystery 
only  as  a  part  of  the  above  named  order.  For  testimony  and 
proof  we  appeal  to  Eph.  1;  2  Thess.  2;  James  2.  ...  It  cannot 


^gidius  Hunnius.  243 

but  be  that  all  persons  chosen  unto  eternal  life  must  be  loved 
of  God,  as  becomes  His  children,  with  a  most  intimate  and  per- 
fect love.  But  it  is  impossible  for  any  one  without  faith  to  be 
so  intimately  loved  of  God,  as  befits  His  children.  Heb.  11. 
Consequently,  we  dare  not  believe  that  any  one  was  chosen  unto 
eternal  life  without  all  regard  to  faith  in  Christ.  .  .  .  Since  election 
is  an  act  of  the  mercy  of  God  toward  fallen,  sinful  man,  it  cannot 
take  place  unless  the  eternal  righteousness  of  God,  which  the 
sin  of  man  offended,  has  received  full  satisfaction.  From  this 
we  conclude  the  following.  The  election  of  sinners  unto  sal- 
vation cannot  take  place,  unless  either  the  sinners  themselves 
render  a  satisfaction  of  their  own  to  God's  eternal  righteous- 
ness, or  receive  that  of  another,  i.  e.  of  Christ,  imputed  unto 
them.  They  cannot  render  a  satisfaction  of  their  own.  It  fol- 
lows then,  if  they  would  be  ordained  to  salvation,  they  must 
render  the  imputed  satisfaction  of  Christ.  But  this  imputation 
takes  place  only  through  faith,  making  it  as  clear  as  day  that 
regard  to  faith,  in  so  far  as  it  embraces  Christ,  cannot  be  debarred 
from  the  election  of  sinners."*     (De  Prasdest.,  p.  339  sqq.) 

"From  the  above  statements  it  is  clear  that  the  election  of 


*  Hunnius  here  follows  strictly  the  words  of  St.  Paul:  Hath  any  man 
prophecy,  let  him  "prophesy  according  to  the  proportion  of  faith,"  that  is 
according  to  the  analogy  of  faith.  For  it  is  one  of  the  fixed  and  immov- 
able principles  of  our  Lutheran  theology,  and  with  God's  help  will  re- 
main such  in  spite  of  Missouri,  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is 
the  chief  article,  and  all  others  must  harmonize  with  it.  Now  it  is  one 
of  the  principal  parts  of  the  doctrine  of  justification,  that  the  bestowal  of 
everlasting  life,  according  to  God's  will,  which  is  ever  one  and  the  same 
immutable  will,  depends  upon  the  sinner's  justification  through  faith  in 
Christ.  "Where  there  is  forgiveness  of  sin,  there  also  is  life  and  salvation" 
—  and  nowhere  else!  "Vita  aeterna  promissa  est  justificatis,"  our  Con- 
fession declares.  "Eternal  life  is  promised  to  those  who  are  justified,"  to 
those  "who  are  reconciled  in  Christ;  and  it  is  faith  that  reconciles  and 
justifies  before  God."  Missouri  indeed  easily  evades  all  this.  It  tells  us: 
To  be  sure,  in  the  universal  decree  of  redemption  the  word  applies:  "He 
that  believeth  shall  be  saved."  Salvation  and  even  eternal  ordination  unto 
salvation  is  here  made  altogether  dependent  upon  faith,  as  is  evinced  also 
by  the  fact  that  God  did  not  ordain  many  unto  salvation  for  the  very 
reason  that  He  foresaw  no  faith  in  them.  But  "it  is  false  to  say,  God  has 
foreseen  who  would  believe  and  therefore  God  has  chosen  them,  for  this 
is  not  predestination  (Gnadenwahl),  it  is  the  order  of  salvation  (Gnaden- 
ordnung)."  (Report  of  the  Western  District,  1880,  p.  29.)  So  then,  in 
the  order  of  salvation,  to  which  justification  belongs,  God  reveals  His  will 
thus:   Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God;    he  only  who  believes 


244  Intuitu  Fidei. 

those  who  are  to  be  saved  is  not  in  the  province  of  God's  will 
working  immutably  without  the  least  regard  to  Christ  as  em- 
braced by  faith,  and  simply  restricting  itself  to  certain  persons* 
(ad  certas  personas  restricta  sit).  Yet  we  do  not  invent  an  elec- 
tion which  extends  over  the  whole  of  the  human  race.  God 
indeed  earnestly  desires  that  all  should  be  saved;  since,  how- 
ever, the  greater  number  by  reason  of  their  own  fault  (as  will 
appear  from  subsequent  statements)  are  not  saved,  these  because 
of  their  own  fault  are  not  numbered  among  God's  children.  For, 
as  the  Book  of  Concord  declares,  God's  eternal  election  and  fore- 
ordination  does  not  extend  to  the  good  and  the  bad  alike,  but 
only  to  the  children  of  God  who  are  chosen  and  ordained  unto 
the  attainment  of  everlasting  life,  before  the  world  began,  Eph.  1. 
To  be  sure,  if  all  men  would  believe  and  persevere  in  faith,  all 
men  would  have  been  predestined  to  life.  But  now,  since  many 
do  not  believe,  and  do  not  use  the  means  through  which  God 
according  to  His  promise  desires  to  work  faith  in  their  hearts,  it 
becomes  a  fact,  as  our  Savior  stated,  that  many  are  called,  but 
few  are  chosen.  And  this  paucity  of  the  elect,  this  particulari- 
zation  of  election  dare  not  be  used  to  contradict  the  universality 
of  God's  promises,  but  must  be  included  in  them  as  something 
subordinate. t  For  not  the  will  of  God,  but  man  himself  is  the 
cause  that  only  a  few  are  saved;  as  Christ  testifies  in  these  very 
parables,  where  He  expressly  undertakes  to  show  the  cause  why 
many  are  called  and  few  are  chosen.  Matt.  20  and  22.  .  .  .  We 
simply  say  and  teach  with  St.  Paul  that  election  took  place  in 
Christ,  Eph.  1.  Now  since  no  man  is  in  Christ  without 
faith,  and  no  man  remains  in  Christ  without  faith  (John 
15),  therefore,  those  who  have  never  believed  in  Christ 
have  never  been  chosen.  We  conclude  furthermore,  those  who 
have  begun  to  believe  and  have  forsaken  faith  are  cut  out  of  the 


shall  be  justified  and  saved.  In  predestination,  however,  God  simply 
ordains  certain  sinners  as  they  are  by  nature  unto  salvation,  and  thereby 
also  unto   faith   and   unto   justification! 

*  Our  orthodox  fathers  alw^ays  designated  "the  children  of  God," 
"the  godly,"  and  especially  "believers"  as  the  proper  subjects  of  election, 
while  the  Calvinists,  already  in  the  days  of  Hunnius  and  later  on  always, 
used  the  specific  expression  that  God  had  chosen  "certain  people,"  "cer- 
tain persons."  Missouri  too  has  shown  great  love  for  this  naked  "certae 
personae." 

t  For  this  very  reason  it  is  clearly  and  explicitly  revealed  by  Christ  in 
His  universal  Gospel;   and  in  this  Gospel  we  are  told  to  seek  our  election. 


yEgidius  Hunyiitis.  245 

olive  tree  (Rom.  11),  are  cast  forth  as  withered  branches  of  the 
vine  (John  15).  Accordingly,  God  was  not  indififerent  in  election, 
disregarding  how  men  would  conduct  themselves*  (quocunque 
modo  se  habentes);  on  the  contrary,  He  has  chosen  and  ordained 
unto  everlasting  life,  according  to  His  foreknowledge,  those  of 
whom  He  saw  and  foreknew  that  they  would  perseveringly  be- 
lieve in  Christ,  the  Savior  of  the  world;  according  to  the  apostle's 
word:  Whom  He  did  foreknow,t  He  also  did  predestinate,  Rom. 
8.  Also  John  6:  Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning  who  would 
not  believe  in  Him."     (Disp.  Witeb.  Hunnii,  p.  227.) 

"If  Christ  is  the  cause  of  our  election  by  reason  of  His  obe- 
dience and  merit.  He  is  such  either  absolutely,  without  imputa- 
tion through  faith,  or  relatively,  in  so  far  as  His  obedience  is 
imputed  to  us  through  faith,  and  Christ  Himself  is  embraced  by 
us.  Taken  absolutely,  however,  without  the  imputation  of  faith, 
Christ's  obedience  is  of  no  use  to  us.  Hence  Christ  with  His 
obedience  is  the  cause  of  our  election  in  so  far  as  He  is  brought 
in  relation  to  us,  and  His  merit  imputed  to  us  through  faith. 
Consequently,  faith  dare  not  be  excluded  from  the  mystery  of 
election.     They,  then,  teach  most  correctly  concerning  predes- 

*  Missouri,  however,  emphasizes  this  as  the  chief  point  in  its  doctrine 
of  predestination,  claiming  that  when  God  desires  to  bestow  His  grace, 
He  makes  no  inquiry  as  to  the  different  conduct  of  men.  Many  a  father, 
we  are  told,  "is  more  gracious  to  one  child  than  to  another,  because  it  is 

more  obedient  and  gives  him  more  pleasure God  deals   with  us 

in  the  same  way,  only  He  does  not  even  inquire  whether  we  have  obeyed 
Him  or  not;  He  does  simply  as  He  pleases."  Neither  Calvin  himself  nor 
any  Calvinist  has  ever  taught  a  more  absolute  grace  ("absolutissima  gra- 
tia" as  the  Genevans  termed  it  at  Dort).  The  libitum  of  Dr.  Walther  is 
the  exact  merum  beneplacitum  of  the  Calvinists,  who  likewise  love  the 
expression:  quoscunque  libuit!  For  Missouri  to  presuppose  God's  uni- 
versal mercy  and  Christ's  universal  merit,  does  not  alter  the  thing  itself. 
It  is  none  the  less  God's  libitum,  and  not  faith,  which  produces  "the  dis- 
tinction of  persons." 

t  Quos  praescivit.  It  may  not  sound  smooth  in  German  [and  in 
English],  "to  foreknow  a  person."  The  Latin  itself  is  not  overly  smooth, 
yet  our  fathers  frequently  used  the  expression  so  as  to  bring  out  their 
meaning  clearly,  namely:  While  God  forces  no  man  to  believe,  granting 
to  all  liberty  to  remain  in  unbelief  and  wilfully  to  reject  salvation  in  spite 
of  His  gracious  offer  to  call  and  save,  yet  He  knew  in  advance,  by  reason 
of  His  omniscient  foreknowledge,  those  who  believe  in  Christ,  knew  them 
as  His  own,  whom  the  Father  had  given  to  the  Son,  who  are  therefore 
accepted  unto  adoption  and  unto  the  inheritance  of  life  eternal  —  accord- 
ing to  His  purpose.     John  1,  12. 


246  Intuitu  Fidei. 

tination  or  election  who  compare  it  properly  with  justification, 
showing  that  what  God  in  eternity  determined  concerning  us  in 
election,  is  now  carried  out  in  time  through  justification.  For 
this  reason  our  churches  teach  that  the  causes  of  election  are  the 
same  as  those  of  justification.  As,  therefore,  no  one  is  justified 
except  those  who  by  faith  embrace  the  grace  of  their  justify- 
ing God,  so  also  no  one  is  elected  in  eternity  except  those  of 
whom  God  foreknew  that  they  would  embrace  the  grace  of  elec- 
tion. Nor  does  this  say  that  we  are  chosen  on  account  of  our 
faith.  As  we  are  not  justified  on  account  of  faith,  but  through 
faith,  or  on  account  of  Christ  embraced  by  faith,  so  also  we 
were  chosen  in  eternity,  not  on  acount  of  faith,  for  the  sake  of 
its  worthiness  and  merit,  but  through  faith,  or  rather  through 
and  on  acount  of  Christ  as  embraced  by  faith.  .  .  .  As,  therefore, 
faith  depends  upon  the  decree  ordaining  the  means,  so  also,  i: 
is  most  certain,  the  choice  of  persons  depends  on  the  grace  of 
God  and  the  merit  of  Christ,  considered  not  apart  from  faith, 
but  as  apprehended  by  faith"  (p.  232). 

"Not  this  is  the  controverted  point  whether  we  are  chosen 
on  account  of  or  for  the  sake  of  our  faith  as  foreknown  by  the 
omniscient  God,  as  though  He  had  been  moved  by  the  quality 
or  worthiness  of  faith  to  elect  us,  and  as  though  we  by  our  faith 
had  furnished  Him  cause  for  our  election,  as  Huber  lyingly  at- 
tributes to  us.*  For  we  explicitly  deny  that  faith  enters  into  the 
article  of  predestination  in  any  such  way.  We  say  that  faith  is 
included  in  the  eternal  act  of  election  only  on  account  of  its  cor- 
relative (the  object  which  it  appropriates),  in  so  far  as  it  embraces 
Jesus  Christ,  the  rock  of  our  salvation;  for  without  faith  neither 
the  grace  of  God  when  He  calls,  nor  the  merit  of  Christ  can  be 
appropriated.  Therefore  also,  without  the  slightest  uncertainty, 
we  declare  that  in  us  there  is  no  cause  which  could  have  moved 
God  to  institute  our  election.  For  not  even  faith,  either  as  re- 
garded in  itself  or  as  found  in  us,  can  possibly  penetrate  into  the 
citadel  of  predestination,  but  only  as  it  turns  away  from  itself 
and  looks  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  world's  Redeemer,  and  embraces 
Him.     Hence  it  is  clear,  that  we  do  not  teach,  nor  is  this  the  point 


*  And  as  Ruber's  worthy  successors,  the  Missourians,  likewise  lyingly 
state  the  doctrine  of  their  opponents  in  the  same  way;  for  they  know  well 
enough  that  we  too  mean  only  Christ  and  His  merit  as  apprehended  by 
faith,  and  not  faith  in  itself  without  Christ  as  its  contents. 


^gidius  Hunnius.  '2Atl 

of  controversy,  that  we  chose  God  through  faith  before  He  cljose 
us,  and  that  we  thus  anticipated  His  election  through  our  faith.* 
That  this  is  not  our  doctrine,  but  Huber's  mahcious  slander  is 
evinced  by  our  confessing  that  election  took  place  already  before 
the  founding  of  the  world,  while  faith  is  generated  through  the 
Word  in  time;  in  fact,  we  declare  that  we  cannot  believe,  unless 
God  of  His  mercy  works  faith  in  us  through  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
a  result  of  His  gracious  predestination."! 

"To  elect  unto  salvation  is  to  determine  or  decree  from 
eternity,  before  the  time  of  the  world,  whom  (among  men)  God  at 
last  will  actually  save.  But  He  has  resolved  in  eternity  that  He 
will  actually  save  only  those  who  believe.  Consequently,  He  has 
chosen  only  believers  unto  salvation.  For,  according  to  His 
antecedent  will.  He  indeed  earnestly  desires  that  all  may  believe 
in  the  Son  and  so  be  saved  by  faith;  and,  according  to  His  coun- 
sel and  pleasure,  He  resolved  to  send  His  only  begotten  Son 
into  the  world;  yet  because  the  greater  part  of  the  world  does  not 
believe  in  the  Son,  therefore  He  does  not  actually  save  all,  but 
only  those  who  believe.  Mark  16;  John  3.  Hence  our  con- 
clusion remains  valid,  that  God  already  in  eternity  determined 
to  save  those  only  who  believe  in  the  Son;  or  (which  is  the  same, 
as  already  stated)  He  has  ordained  and  chosen  them  from  eter- 
nity. This  argument  is  overthrown  by  no  trick  or  counter-ar- 
guments, it  remains  unshaken  until  it  is  proven  that  it  is  not  the 
same  thing,  to  elect  men  from  eternity  unto  salvation,  and  to 
decree  that  men  shall  actually  be  saved.  To  attempt  such  proof 
would  be  to  contradict  the  Scriptures,  and  likewise  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  which  in  its  Epitome  explains  the  term  'election' 
by  saying:  'In  Christ,  therefore,  we  should  seek  the  eternal  elec- 
tion of  .the  Father,  who,  in  His  eternal  divine  counsel,  determined 


*  Hunnius,  in  this  passage,  as  far  as  election  is  concerned,  takes  every- 
thing from  faith  as  regarded  by  itself  or  as  merely  inhering  in  man,  and 
gives  everything  to  Christ  as  apprehended  by  faith,  not  (as  Missouri  de- 
sires) to  Christ  as  still  unappropriated  by  sinners  without  faith  and  still 
unknown  to  them.  In  other  passages  he  does  the  same  thing  in  regard  to 
justification.  In  both  articles  Christ  as  well  as  faith  occupy  identical  po- 
sitions, and  sustain  the  same  relation  to  each  other.  Neither  Christ  apart 
from  faith,  nor  faith  apart  from  Christ  constitutes  the  adequate  (complete) 
cause  of  election,  but  only  Christ  as  apprehended  by  faith. 

t  In  what  respect  Hunnius,  and  we  with  him,  consider  faith  "as  a 
result  of  God's  gracious  predestination,"  —  referring  even  the  faith  of  tem- 
porary believers  back  to  God's  eternal  decree  —  we  shall  see  later  on. 


248  Intuitu  Fidei. 

that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowledge  His 
Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  Him.'*  This  Christ  Himself 
teaches  in  the  Gospel,  John  3,  16,  where  He  states  the  antecedent 
will  of  the  eternal  Father  in  the  following  words:  'God  so  loved 
the  world.'  Furthermore:  'God  sent  not  His  Son  into  the  world 
to  condemn  the  World;  but  that  the  world  through  Him  might 
be  saved.'  And  since  not  all  the  world  receives  this  Son,  He 
has  also  fixed  the  decree  of  eternal  election,  in  His  subsequent 
will  couched  in  the  following  words:  'That  whosoever  believeth 
in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.'  And  again: 
'He  that  believeth  on  Him  is  not  condemned;  but  he  that  be- 
lieveth not  is  condemned  already,  because  he  hath  not  believed 
in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.'f  In  the  same  way 
Christ  explains  the  decree  of  predestination  unto  life  in  these 
words:  'This  is  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one 
which  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  Him,  may  have  everlasting 
life,'  John  6,  40.  It  cannot  be  objected  here  that  these  words 
do  not  speak  of  the  decree  of  election.  For  it  is  most  certain 
that  this  is  the  Father's  will  not  merely  in  time;  it  was  the  will 
of  God  already  in  the  counsel,  purpose,  and  decree  of  predesti- 
nation, before  the  founding  of  the  world;  and  in  this  will  the 


*  Open  your  ears,  ye  Missourian  foes  of  the  Intuitu  Fidei!  Here,  if 
anywhere  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  is  a  brief,  concise  definition  of  election. 
Why,  then,  have  you  never  taken  note  of  this  most  important  passage! 
Perhaps  it  does  not  suit  you?  It  should  be  noted  especially  in  the  above 
citation  that  Hunnius  sets  forth  his  doctrine  as  the  clear  teaching  of  the 
F.  C.  And  this  was  the  man  who,  on  the  14th  of  September,  1577,  being 
then  professor  at  Marburg,  subscribed  the  F.  C.  with  the  following  words: 
"I,  ^gidius  Hunnius,  subscribe  the  Book  of  Concord  in  all  its  articles 
throughout  with  all  my  heart  as  with  my  pen."  But,  according  to  opinions 
at  St.  Louis,  the  original  subscribers  did  not  understand  the  F.  C. ! 

t  Missouri,  indeed,  evades  this  by  means  of  its  twofold  decrees.  The 
one  is  the  revealed  and  universally  valid  decree  of  redemption,  declaring: 
"He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved."  The  other,  said  to  be  the  secret  decree 
of  election,  applies  only  to  certain  individual  sinners  in  Adam,  and  de- 
clares concerning  them  a  purpose  contradictory  to  the  former:  Because 
I  am  resolved  to  save  you  most  surely  in  preference  to  others,  therefore 
I  choose  you  unto  salvation  and  unto  all  means  necessary  to  its  attainment, 
thus  also  unto  faith.  For  these  latter  sinners,  therefore,  the  gracious  will 
of  God  is  at  once  a  decreeing  will,  without  any  mediation  whatever  through 
faith;  for  the  rest  God's  gracious  will  can  become  a  decreeing  will  only 
then,  when  He  foresees  their  faith  in  Christ.  To  be  sure  —  "an  entirely 
different  thing." 


ALgidius  Hiaiimis.  249 

reference  to  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  was  fixed,  that  he  alone  who 
believes  in  Christ  should  have  everlasting  life,  and  be  chosen 
thereunto,  while  whosoever  believes  not,  or  will  not  in  time  be- 
lieve His  grace,  shall  not  be  chosen  unto  eternal  life,  but  be 
already  condemned.  For  this  reason  the  Book  of  Concord  uses 
this  word  of  the  Savior  (John  6,  40),  without  the  slightest  ambig- 
uity, to  explain  (explicare)  the  decree  of  election,  saying:  'Christ 
as  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  has  published  to  us  the  will  of  the  Father,  and  thus* 
also  our  eternal  election  to  eternal  life,  viz:  when  He  says:  Re- 
pent ye,  and  believe  the  Gospel;  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand. 
He  also  says:  This  is  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  that  every 
one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  Him,  may  have  ever- 
lasting life.  And  again:  'God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave 
His  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him,  should 
not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.'  All  these  passages,  one 
like  the  other,  limit  the  election  of  God,  with  expressed  determina- 
tion (expressa  determinatione),  exclusively  to  those  who  believe 
in  Christ.  This  also  St.  Paul  declares,  1  Cor.  1:  'It  pleased  Ggd 
by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe.'  " 
(Disp.  Witeb.  p.  284,  285.t) 


*  "Hac  ratione,"  really  by  this  procedure,  in  tliis  manner,  by  this 
method  or  means  of  instruction. 

t  Let  the  gentlemen  at  St.  Louis  —  we  certainly  may  say  —  possess 
all  possible  secrets,  and  be  fully  grown  Goliaths  in  the  battle  against  syner- 
gism, if  only  they  would  let  us  keep  the  Lutheran  faith  of  our  childhood, 
that  which  we  —  God  be  praised!  —  learned  in  the  parochial  school  at  St. 
Louis  and  in  the  Seminary,  as  being  both  according  to  the  Scriptures  and 
the  Confession;  if  only  they  would  not  seek  to  rob  us  of  this  faith  by 
means  of  their  mysterious  absurdities,  and  cease  decrying  it  as  synergism! 
Yet  with  all  their  art  they  will  not  be  able  to  alter  the  fact,  that,  in  regard 
to  the  actual  bestowal  of  salvation,  God  1)  has  but  one  gracious  will  toward 
all  sinners;  that  2)  He  has  clearly  revealed  this  true  will  of  His  in  the 
Gospel  when  he  declares:  "He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved"  —  and  none 
other;  and  that  3)  already  in  eternity  and  in  election  He  resolved  to  con- 
sider faith  in  the  same  sense  and  after  the  same  manner  as  He  now  actually 
considers  it  in  time.  His  will  decreeing  in  eternity  and  His  will  execut- 
ing in  time  are  not  two  contradictory  wills  in  God,  but  ever  one  and  the 
same  will.  He  only  who  believes  shall  be  saved,  so  declares  the  Father's 
eternal  election,  so  therefore  also  His  execution  in  time. 


250  Intuitu  Fidei. 


THE  WITTENBERG  FACULTY. 

The  Faculty  of  Wittenberg*  writes  in  the  year  1596:  "When 
faith  is  introduced  in  the  article  of  predestination,  it  must  not 
be  understood  as  though  God  chose  us  for  the  sake  of  faith  on 
account  of  our  merit,  or  that  we  were  chosen  of  God  because  He 
saw  in  eternity  that  we  would  believe  in  Christ,  and  thus  show 
ourselves  worthy  of  His  grace  and  election.  On  the  contrary^ 
this  is  the  correct  understanding  of  the  blessed  doctrine  of  faith: 
God  in  eternity  ordained  true  faith  in  Christ  as  the  one  blessed 
means  and  instrument  for  apprehendmg  and  appropriating  the 
precious  merit  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Rom.  3,  4.  14;  Gal.  3,  4; 
John  1,  3.  6;  since  we  were  chosen,  not  outside  of  Christ,  but  in 
Him,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  Eph.  1,  and 
no  man  is  found  in  Christ,  except  it  be  through  faith,  through 
which  He  dwells  in  our  hearts,  Eph.  3,  and  through  which  we 
are  joined  to  Him  and  grafted  into  Him  as  living  fruitful  branches 
of  the  vine,  John  15;  Rom.  6.  Hence  we  believe,  teach,  and 
confess  that  living  faith  in  Christ  must  have  its  proper  place  in 
the  doctrine  and  complete  description  of  God's  election  unto  eter- 
nal life,  as  an  exceedingly  necessary  and  altogether  indispensable 
part.  The  Christian  Book  of  Concord  also  reckons  faith  in  Christ 
among  the  eight  points  which  must  be  taken  together  when  we 


*  Dr.  Walther  states  in  "L.  u.  W.,"  1880,  45,  that  the  Wittenberg  Fac- 
ulty at  that  time  consisted  of  "orthodox  theologians";  he  produces  ex- 
tracts from  their  writings  against  Huber  to  show  how  these  "orthodox 
theologians  taught  concerning  the  relation  of  faith  to  predestination." 
Hunnius,  Leyser,  and  Gesner  were  the  authors  of  this  "Thorough  Refuta- 
tion." Leyser  had  become  professor  at  Wittenberg  already  in  1576,  and 
there  he  subscribed  the  F.  C. ;  in  1588  he  succeeded  Chemnitz,  as  his  best 
friend,  in  Braunschweig;  and  in  1593  he  returned  as  professor  to  Witten- 
berg. He  labored  zealously  for  the  introduction  of  the  F.  C.  as  a  bul- 
wark against  Calvinism.  Although,  already  in  1594,  he  went  to  Dresden 
as  chief  court-preacher,  he  always  continued  to  take  a  direct  personal 
interest  in  the  writing  of  the  Wittenbergers  against  Huber.  Sal.  Gesner 
was  a  young  man  of  21  studying  at  the  University  in  Strassburg  when  the 
F.  C.  was  published  (1580);  in  1586  he  became  rector  in  Silesia;  and  in 
1593  professor  at  Wittenberg.  Now  it  is  incredible  enough,  to  begin  with, 
that  these  men  should  have  misunderstood  the  F.  C.  so  completely  as  to 
imagine  its  true  teaching  to  be  the  very  doctrine  which  the  Formula  itself 
rejects  as  one  "not  to  be  tolerated,  a  blasphemous  and  dreadful  false  doc- 
trine."    Yet  it  is  far  more  incredible  that  in  these  faithful  orthodox  times 


The  Wittenberg  Faculty.  251 

speak  of  God's  eternal  predestination  unto  adoption,  just  as  the 
Epitome  declares  that  God,  'in  His  eternal  divine  counsel,  de- 
termined that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowl- 
edge His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  Him.'  "  (Thorough 
Refutation  of  Huber,  p.  27,  etc.) 

The  "Thorough  Vindication  of  the  Articles  of  Visitation" 
(p.  299)  declares:  "We  are  indeed  chosen  not  on  account  of  faith, 
as  also  we  are  justified  before  God  not  on  account  of  the  worthi- 
ness of  faith,  considered  by  itself  as  a  quality  or  virtue.  On  the 
contrary,  faith  is  demanded  after  this  manner:  by  true  and  living* 
faith  we  are  to  accept  the  grace  of  election,  which  has  been 
offered  to  us  in  Christ  and  has  approached  us  through  His  re- 
demption, and  are  to  apply  it  to  ourselves  and  make  it  our  own." 
On  this  the  Wittenbergers  have  the  following  to  say:  "From  these 
words  we  learn  that  in  the  article  of  God's  election  unto  eternal 
life  faith  dare  not  be  taken  otherwise  than  in  the  article  of  the 
justification  of  a  poor  sinner  before  God.  When  then  we  say, 
with  the  Word  of  God,  that  man  is  justified  before  God  through 
faith  in  Christ,  it  is  plain  that  no  merit  whatever  is  ascribed  to 
faith,  but  that  faith  is  taken  only  as  the  means,  instrument,  and 
spiritual  hand  whereby  we  embrace  the  grace  of  God,  promised 
us  in  Christ,  and  make  it  our  own.  For,  in  the  first  place,  faith 
is  not  in  our  own  power,  it  is  the  work  of  God,  John  6;  Eph.  2; 
Acts  15.  Then,  in  the  second  place,  we  are  justified  by  faith  not 
in  so  far  as  faith  is  in  us,  or  constitutes  a  gift  or  virtue  in  the 
regenerate,  but  in  so  far  as  faith  is  viewed  apart  from  man,  in 


— only  12  to  16  years  after  the  introduction  of  the  F.  C. — all  these  thousands 
of  original  friends  of  the  F.  C,  still  living  in  Germany,  the  subscribers 
and  defenders  of  the  F.,  including  one  of  its  authors  even,  should  all 
have  snored  in  such  profound  slumbers,  when  Hunnius,  with  a  few  others 
to  aid  him,  swept  the  pure  doctrine  of  predestination,  which  had  just  been 
publicly  laid  down  in  the  Confession,  completely  out  of  the  Church,  and  in 
doing  so  appealed  for  his  support  most  emphatically  to  the  F.  C.  itself, 
which,  as  Missouri  tells  us,  explicitly  rejects  his  doctrine  and  teaches  the 
very  contrary.  Indeed,  Missouri  expects  much  of  us,  when  it  asserts 
that  all  these  original  theologians  of  the  F.  C.  in  Rostock,  Wittenberg, 
Leipzig,  Tuebingen,  etc.,  had  already,  in  opposing  Huber,  "forsaken  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Symbol"  and  begun  to  abuse  both  badly.  But  the 
splendor  of  its  growth  has  led  Missouri  into  pride  and  arrogance,  and  it 
has  been  overtaken  by  a  fall  in  doctrine,  so  that  it  has  lost  all  sight  and 
hearing,  and  nothing  now  will  cure  it.  But  let  us  hear  what  these  "ortho- 
dox theologians"  really  believed  and  taught. 


252  Intuitu  Fidei. 

the  grace  of  God  and  precious  merit  of  our  Lord  Christ.  Then 
faith  justifies  us  before  God  when  it  exhibits  to  our  heavenly- 
Father  the  perfect  obedience  and  precious  merit  of  Christ,  1  John 
2,  1."     (P.  28.*) 

"Just  as  we  are  justified,  not  on  account  of  faith  as  a  work 
and  merit,  but  through  faith,  inasmuch  as  we  embrace  the  merit 
of  Christ  by  faith;  so  too  we  are  chosen  of  God  unto  eternal  life, 
not  on  account  of  faith,  but  through  or  in  faith,  as  St.  Paul  writes 
2  Thess.  2,  13:  'God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  sal- 
vation in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  in  belief  of  the  truth.' 
And  just  as  we  by  faith  embrace  not  justification  itself,  but  the 
merit  of  Christ,  and  become  justified  when  we  accept  Christ  in 
true  faith;  so  also  faith  embraces  not  election  itself,  as  Dr.  Huber 
imagines,  but  the  grace  of  election  and  the  Lord  Christ  in  His 
merit,t  and  they  who  appropriate  Him  in  faith  are  the  ones  that 
are  chosen  in  Christ,  Eph.  1.  So  then  faith  is  included  in  predes- 
tination precisely  as  it  is  taken  in  man's  justification  before  God. 
Indeed,  faith  enters  predestination  only  in  so  far  as  God  has 
ordained  it  to  be  a  blessed  means  and  gives  us  faith  through  the 
Holy  Spirit,  Acts  15;  Rom.  10,  and  in  so  far  as  it  takes  its  stand 
outside  of  ourselves  in  the  mercy  and  pure  grace  of  God.  And 
therefore  it  is  plain  that  Dr.  HuberJ  accuses  us  from  mere  frac- 
tiousness,  when  he  represents  us  as  making  faith  to  be  a  thing 
so  precious  and  important  in  the  eyes  of  divine  majesty,  that  for 
the  sake  of  its  worthiness  and  merit  God  chose  us  unto  eternal 
life;  whereas  we  ascribe  all  this  to  faith  only  in  so  far  as  it  relies 
upon  Christ"  (p.  29). 

"Just  as  little  as  our  righteousness  is  based  on  our  faith  as 
a  work  of  our  own,  so  little  also  is  predestination  based  on  our 
faith  as  a  merit  of  our  own.  This  was  already  fully  explained 
above,  when  it  was  stated  that  faith  was  considered  in  justification 
and  in  election  not  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  quality  or  virtue  in  our- 
selves, but  inasmuch  as  it  embraces,  outside  of  ourselves  and  in 
God,  the  mercy  of  God  and  the  precious  merit  of  Christ.  Since 
now  it  has  pleased  God  to  justify  us  through  faith,  and  to  elect 


*  Hence  faith  is  considered  here  not  as  the  beginning  of  man's  renewal, 
but  as   a   means   for  appropriating   Christ. 

t  Dr.  Walther  quotes  the  passage  up  to  this  point  in  "L.  u.  W.,"  1880, 
45. 

X  Missouri  does  the  same  thing  to-day. 


The  Wittc7iberg  Faculty.  253 

us  in  belief  of  the  truth,  2  Thess.  2,  13,  the  immovable  foundation 
and  corner  stone  of  our  election  rests  by  no  means  in  us,  as 
though  we  had  destroyed  or  rendered  uncertain  the  counsel  and 
order  of  God,  but  it  rests  only  and  wholly  in  God's  gracious  will 
and  in  the  precious  merit  of  Christ.  And  even  though  we  should 
deny  the  faith,  and  forsake  God,  and  break  the  covenant,  God 
still  remains  true  and  cannot  deny  Himself.  And  though  we 
should  fall  from  faith,  God's  immutable  counsel  still  stands  un- 
moved. And  this,  because  God's  election  looks  not  to  certain 
persons*  or  a  certain  number  of  men,  but  applies  only  to  believers. 
If  Peter  believes,  he  is  among  the  number  of  the  elect;  if  he  falls 
away  and  remains  in  unbelief,  God's  counsel  still  stands  unmoved. 
He  still  wills  that  all  who  believe  in  the  Son  shall  be  saved"  (p.  32). 
"Our  heavenly  Father  regards  the  saving  sufifering  of  His 
dear  Son  in  election,  and  not  our  work.f      But   He  does   not 


*  That  is  to  a  mustering  of  sinners  in  Adam,  after  the  manner  of  Cal- 
vinistic  Missouri:  "This  man  and  that  and  the  other"  —  without  any  refer- 
ence whatever  to  repentance  or  faith,  simply  according  to  a  "free  pur- 
pose"—  are  chosen  1)  unto  salvation,  and  hence  2)  also  unto  all  means. 
All  who  teach  such  a  free  mustering  of  sinners  unto  the  certain  attain- 
ment of  salvation,  thereby  clearly  teach  an  especial  particular  will  of  grace 
in  God,  according  to  which  God  awards  and  bestows  eternal  salvation 
upon  "certain  persons"  not  on  the  basis  of  Christ's  merit  as  embraced  by 
faith.  This  contradicts  God's  universal  will  of  grace,  which  is  revealed  to 
us  thus:  He  that  believes  shall  be  saved;  and  not  "certain  persons"  shall 
be  saved. 

t  Our  readers  will,  we  hope,  be  pleased  to  have  us  place  before  them 
the  testimony  of  the  original  subscribers  and  defenders  of  the  F.  C.  in  all 
its  fullness.  St.  Louis  tries  to  make  it  appear  as  though  the  doctrine  it 
now  rejects  and  reviles  under  the  name  "Intuitu-fidei  theory,"  was  intro- 
duced by  the  dogmaticians  of  the  17th  century,  at  least  40-60  years  after 
the  adoption  of  the  F.  C.,  as  the  general  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 
But  the  facts  in  the  case  are,  that  it  appeared  clearly  already  in  the  con- 
troversy with  Huber,  in  the  years  1592-1598,  what  was  the  general  doc- 
trine of  the  Lutheran  Church  on  the  basis  of  the  F.  C,  and  what  was 
declared  to  be  its  correct  meaning  by  the  original  authors  and  subscribers 
of  the  Formula  in  the  universities  at  Rostock,  Wittenberg,  Leipzig,  Tue- 
bingen  and  Marburg,  and  was  acknowledged  to  be  such  by  the  remaining 
thousands  of  subscribers.  The  utterances  of  these  men  of  the  F.  C.  are 
so  clear  and  distinct  that  an  honest  person  would  never  think  of  offering 
the  plea,  that  he  cannot  grasp  their  meaning.  For  with  one  accord  they 
all  teach  that  the  choice  of  persons  unto  the  infallible  attainment  of  sal- 
vation, the  real  decree  concerning  the  bestowal  of  salvation  upon  certain 


254  Intuitu  Fidei. 

regard  our  Lord  Christ  merely  in  so  far  as  He  furnished  the 
ransom  and  purchased  the  heavenly  treasures  for  us.  On  the 
contrary,  He  regards  it  in  this  manner,  that  when  we  have  em- 
braced His  merit  in  true  faith,  and  applied  it  to  ourselves,  and 
made  it  our  own,  it  then  through  faith  becomes  our  merit,  as 
our  Lord  Christ  is  made  unto  us  wisdom  and  righteousness,  and 
sanctification  and  redemption,  1  Cor.  1,  30.  God  does  not  simply 
proceed  to  justify  all  men,  in  view  of  the  merit  of  Christ  and  of 
the  lofty  work  of  redemption,  as  this  in  itself  was  accomplished 
once  by  Christ.  He  justifies  them  when  they  take  this  merit  of 
the  Lord  Christ  to  themselves  in  living  faith,  and  fold  themselves 
in  it  through  faith.  How  much  less  then  will  our  heavenly  Fa- 
ther elect  all  men*  unto  eternal  life,  simply  in  view  of  the  cross 
of  Christ.  They  must  take  and  keep  the  death  of  Christ  by  a 
strong  and  firm   faith;    and   this   the   more,   since  justification, 


sinners  in  preference  to  others,  has  foreseen  faith  for  its  presup'position, 
because  this  choice  is  based  on  Christ's  merit,  and  Christ  is  apprehended 
personally  by  individuals  only  through  faith.  Missouri  may  imagine  that 
it  understands  the  F.  C.  better  than  did  all  these  its  original  subscribers 
in  all  orthodox  universities;  a  sober  mind  will  smile  at  such  childish  arro- 
gance. But  Missouri  itself  has  acknowledged  and  emphasized,  even  in 
the  beginning  of  the  present  controversy,  that  the  doctrine  of  our  old 
teachers  concerning  the  relation  of  faith  to  election  in  Christ,  is  the  same 
as  that  of  the  F.  C,  and  is  according  to  the  Scriptures.  The  question 
now  is  as  to  this  doctrine,  and  these  testimonies  of  the  men  of  the  F.  C. 
are  to  exhibit  it  clearly  and  fully. 

*  Here  the  Wittenbergers  reject  the  doctrine  of  Missouri,  that  God 
ordained  certain  sinners  in  preference  to  others  unto  the  infallible  attain- 
ment of  salvation,  simply  on  account  of  Christ's  merit  as  wrought  out  for 
us  and  not  yet  apprehended  by  faith;  thereby  making  faith  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  assume  the  subordinate  role  of  a  mere  means  for  carrying 
out  God's  decree,  without  having  decided,  or  now  deciding,  anything. 
Where  is  there  a  word  in  the  Bible  saying  that  God  decreed  infallibly  to 
save  certain  sinners  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merit  merely  as  wrought  out 
for  us,  without  regard  to  its  appropriation  by  faith?  Where  is  it  written 
that  for  certain  sinners  the  fixed  decree  of  their  salvation  flows  simply 
from  Christ's  merit  as  wrought  out,  while  it  does  not  flow  so  simply  from 
this  merit  for  others,  but  depends  on  their  appropriation  of  Christ's  merit; 
and  for  this  very  reason  this  decree  is  not  passed  upon  them,  because  God 
seeks  faith  in  them,  but  does  not  find  it?  And  does  not  every  child  see 
that  two  contradictory  wills  are  predicated,  when  God,  in  the  first  place, 
is  made  to  tell  all  men:  "For  the  sake  of  Christ  I  will  decree  the  salvation 
of  you  all,  but  only  if  you  believe  in  Him";  — and  then  is  still  made  to  say 
to  the  elect  especially:  "No,  not  on  the  condition  of  faith,  but  simply  for 
the  sake  of  Christ"?! 


The  Wittenberg  Faculty.  255 

according  to  St.  Paul's  doctrine,  Rom.  8,  is  so  completely  incor- 
porated in  predestination,  that  there  can  be  no  predestination 
unto  eternal  life  without  justification"  (p.  41). 

"Never  has  this  been  our  opinion  that  faith,  in  so  far  as  it 
is  a  quality  in  us,  or  a  work  and  an  act  of  our  own,  could  cause 
predestination;  as  also  it  cannot  and  dare  not  in  this  respect  be 
called  a  cause  of  justification.  But  aside  from  this,  if  only  we 
are  one  in  the  thing  itself,  namelv  ni  the  doctrine  that  God  has 
chosen  in  Christ  to  eternal  life,  not  without  any  regard  whatever 
[nicht  bloss  dahin],  but  only  in  gracious  view  of  faith,  those  who 
believe  in  Christ,  and  not  those  who  are  without  faith  —  we  will 
dispute  with  no  man  concerning  faith,  whether  it  be  termed  a 
causa  (cause),  synaition  (a  cause  among  others),  or  something 
necessary,  membrum  (a  member)  and  requisitum  (a  requisite), 
or  a  quality,  property,  and  attributum  (attribute)  of  the  elect 
and  therefore  also  of  predestination.*      Everything  depends  on 

*  This  declaration  of  the  theologians  of  the  F.  C.  is  exceedingly  im- 
portant. "If  only  we  are  one  in  the  thing  itself,"  they  say,  in  regard  to 
the  relation  between  election  and  faith,  then  "we  will  dispute  with  no  man 
concerning  faith,"  in  regard  to  the  technical  term,  whether  faith  is  to  be 
termed  a  cause,  a  cause  among  other  causes,  a  necessary  thing,  etc.  And 
what  was  the  thing  itself  wherein  all  Lutherans  were  required  to  be  one? 
This,  "that  God  has  chosen  in  Christ  to  eternal  life,  not  without  any  re- 
gard whatever,  but  only  in  gracious  view  of  faith,  those  who  believe  in 
Christ,  and  not  those  who  are  without  faith";  that  therefore  election  is 
to  be  sought  not  in  the  unappropriated  merit  of  Christ.  And  this  very 
thing  Missouri  now  rejects  most  decidedly,  and  teaches  that  God's  mercy 
and  Christ's  merit  alone,  in  itself,  without  appropriation  by  faith,  consti- 
tutes the  complete  cause  of  election.  We  are  told  that  God  chose  certain 
sinners,  still  lying  in  the  universal  depravity,  simply  for  the. sake  of  Christ's 
merit  as  wrought  out  for  us  and  not  yet  appropriated  by  faith;  and  that 
He  declared:  "These  shall  and  must  be  saved,  and  as  surely  as  God  is  God 
these  will  be  saved,  and  besides  these  none  others!"  What  shall  we  say 
when  we  hear  that  these  people,  who  are  now  so  determined  to  ex- 
clude all  regard  to  faith  from  predestination,  claim  always  to  have  had 
this  doctrine!  Did  not  Dr.  Walther  write  often,  emphatically,  and  clearly 
that  he  by  no  means  rejected  or  disapproved  of  the  doctrine  of  the  fathers, 
but  objected  only  to  the  expression  intuitu  lidei?  As  regards  the  dotcrine, 
the  thing  itself,  he  agreed  most  heartily,  he  told  us,  with  the  defenders  of 
the  intuitu  fidei.  And,  we  are  here  told,  in  regard  to  the  mere  term  there 
shall  be  no  dispute,  "if  only  we  are  one  in  the  thing  itself"!  In  1872,  when 
Dr.  Walther's  deviation  from  the  doctrine  of  our  old  teachers  had  already 
been  publicly  attacked,  he  still  wrote  in  "L.  u.  W.,"  p.  139,  highly  offended 
because  of  the  accusation:  "Our  Synod  confesses  most  decidedly  that  the 
theologians  of  our  Church  in  the  17th  century  taught  the  correct  doctrine 


256  Intuit2i  Fidei. 

this:  faith  dare  not  be  excluded;  and  predestination  dare  not 
be  sought  altogether,  without  faith  in  Christ,  in  the  mere  will  of 
God  and  merit  of  our  Lord  Christ,  even  though  it  be  unappro- 
priated by  faith  —  as  Huber*  declares.  On  the  contrary,  we 
must  teach  with  the  Christian  Book  of  Concord  and  accept  the 
declaration  of  its  Epitome:  'The  Father,  in  His  eternal  divine 
counsel,  determined  that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those  who. 
acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  Him.' " 
(P.  106.) 

Crypto-Calvinism  in  Saxony,  as  is  well-known,  occasioned 
the  publication  of  the  articles  of  Visitation  (Visitationsartikel),. 
which  were  drawn  up  in  1592  by  six  theologians  appointed  thereto. 
Among  these  there  were  at  least  four  of  the  original  subscribers 


concerning  predestination,  and  maintained  it  against  the  Calvinists;  this 
one  thing  only  our  Synod  objects  to  in  the  doctrinal  presentation  of  these 
theologians,  the  expression,  'God  has  elected  intuitu  fidei'  is  'an  unhappily 
chosen  terminology.'  "  Really,  what  can  we  say  to  this?  In  one  place 
we  read:  "Our  Synod,"  at  that  time,  confessed  "most  decidedly"  that  the 
defenders  of  the  intuitu  fidei  had  "the  correct  doctrine  concerning  pre- 
destination," —  the  doctrine,  therefore,  of  the  Scriptures,  of  the  Confes- 
sion, and  of  Dr.  Walther  himself!  —  "taught"  it  in  their  dogmatical  and 
polemical  writings,  and  "maintained  it  against  the  Calvinists."  Then 
again  we  read  that  this  "our  Synod"  does  not  to-day  agree  with  the  fathers 
in  the  "intuitu-fidei-theory,"  i.  e.  in  the  doctrine  of  election  which  our 
fathers  really  meant  and  maintained  against  the  Calvinists.  And  in  the 
third  place  we  are  told  that,  in  spite  of  all  this,  the  Synod  has  always  held 
the  position  it  now  holds  on  this  point,  and  Dr.  Walther  in  particular 
always  believed,  taught,  and  confessed  what  he  holds  to-day,  and  teaches 
to-day  what  he  held  then.  This  is  what  they  do  who  delight  to  call  others 
liars,  hypocrites,  etc.!!  The  case  is  exceedingly  simple:  If  the  Synod  in 
the  past  really  agreed  with  our  old  teachers  in  "the  thing  itself,"  then 
some  one  is  lying  now  in  saying  it  has  always  held  its  present  position.. 
If,  however,  it  did  not  agree,  then  Dr.  Walther  lied  at  the  time  when  he 
wrote  that  it  did  agree! 

*  And  with  him  Missouri.  To  be  sure,  they  differ  from  Huber  in  the 
extension  of  the  idea  of  election;  Huber  applies  election  to  all  men  devoid' 
of  faith,  Missouri  only  to  some  of  them.  But  in  regard  to  the  essential' 
idea  of  election  —  this  that  Christ's  merit  as  prepared  for  us,  without  re- 
gard to  its  appropriation  by  faith,  causes  election  —  Missouri  agrees  fully 
with  Huber;  and  therefore,  its  doctrine  is  rejected  by  the  Wittenbergers 
like  the  doctrine  of  Huber.  For  the  Wittenbergers  do  not  say  that  Hu- 
ber's  idea  of  election  is  correct  in  itself,  being  merely  in  a  wrong  way  ex- 
tended to  all  men;  they  reject  the  very  substance  of  this  election  of  men 
devoid  of  faith. 


The  Wittenberg  Faculty.  257 

of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  viz:  Mirus,*  Mylius,  Loner  and 
Hitnnius.  The  last  of  these  was  the  real  author  of  the  Articles, 
as  also  of  the  "Thorough  Vindication"  of  these  Articles  issued 
by  the  same  six  theologians  in  the  following  year.  And  here  we 
find  the  following  "correct  doctrine  concerning  predestination" 
maintained  against  the  Calvinists:  "God  was  not  moved  to  pre- 
destination by  the  consideration  of  future  works  or  worthiness 
of  the  elect ;  yet  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  God  had  regard 
to  nothing  whatever,  save  His  own  mere  will.  For  the  Script- 
ures testify  explicitly  that  we  are  chosen  through  Christ,  and 
through  Him  ordained  unto  adoption  in  Himself.  So  then  God's 
gracious  and  merciful  election  is  based  on  the  secure  foundation 
and  rock,  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  we  are  to  cling  by  faith.  And 
now  we  are  chosen  and  ordained  unto  adoption,  but  only  in 
Christ;  and  we  all  can  be  saved,  but  in  no  way  except  through 
Christ.  For  this  is  the  will  of  the  Father,  that  whosoever  ^eeth 
the  Son  and  believeth  on  Him  shall  have  everlasting  life." 

"Therefore  also,  Christ  is  called  the  Book  of  Life;  not  as 
though  God  determined  to  save  a  number  of  men  in  Him.  while 
He  absolute  excluded  the  rest  from  salvation,  and  ordained  them 
to  hell;  but  for  this  reason,  because  the  counsel  of  God  stands 
firm,  that  no  one  shall  be  saved  except  in  Christ,  and  God  the  Fa- 
ther hath  made  us  acceptable  unto  Himself  through  the  Beloved. 


*  Martin  Mirus,  born  1532,  professor  at  Jena,  at  the  time  of  the  pub- 
lication of  the  F.  C.  court-preacher  in  Saxony,  as  such  he  subscribed  the 
Formula.  He,  together  with  Hunnius,  Mylius,  Leyser  and  Selnecker, 
were  called  for  a  visitation  of  the  churches  on  account  of  the  Crypto-Cal- 
vinism  which  had  crept  in.  Died  1593.  —  Joshua  Loner,  born  1516,  stud- 
ied at  Wittenberg  and  took  the  degree  of  Magister  there,  subscribed  the 
F.  C.  when  Consiliarius  at  Henneberg;  Superintendent  in  1592,  and  Dr. 
of  Theology  in  1593.  Died  1595.  —  George  Mylius  (also  called  Mueller), 
born  1544;  Dean  in  Augsburg  in  1572,  where  he  subscribed  the  F.  C;  in 
1585  professor  at  Wittenberg,  at  Jena  in  1598,  and  again  at  Wittenberg  in 
1603,  where  he  died  in  1607.  He  generally  took  part  in  the  discussions 
with  Huber.  We  regret  that  his  Disputationes  against  the  Calvinists  are 
not  accessible  to  us,  as  they  will  furnish  further  important  testimonies  of 
this  zealous  and  faithful  theologian  of  the  F.  C.  —  Hunnius,  called  to  Wit- 
tenberg in  1592  to  suppress  the  Crypto-Calvinism  which  had  crept  in.  Al- 
ready in  1585  his  Commentary  on  John's  Gospel  appeared;  in  it  he  fre- 
quently touches  on  predestination,  and  treats  this  doctrine  fully  in  con- 
nection with  the  sixth  chapter.  Very  likely  the  F.  C,  in  which,  for  the 
first  time,  the  Lutheran  Church  laid  down  its  confession  on  this  article, 
caused  this  question  to  become  a  point  of  controversy  between  Lutherans 


258  Intuitu  Fidei. 

.  .  .  Just  as  God's  eternal  predestination  flowed  originally  from 
His  great  love  and  then  based  itself  on  Jesus  Christ  as  the  rock 
of  salvation,  so  also  faith  ni  Jesus  Christ  is  included  in  this  elec- 
tion, without  which  neither  the  grace  of  Him  that  calls  nor  the 
merit  of  Christ  can  be  apprehended.  We,  indeed,  are  chosen  not 
for  the  sake  of  faith,  just  as  we  are  justified  not  for  the  sake 
of  the  worthiness  of  faith  as  it  constitutes  a  virtue  or  quality  in 
us.  Faith  is  demanded  that  by  it  we  may  embrace  God's  eternal 
election,  which  is  oft'ered  us  in  Christ,  and  extended  to  us  only 
for  the  sake  of  His  redemption;  by  true  living  faith  we  are  to 
apply  to  ourselves  and  appropriate  for  ourselves  this  gracious 
election  of  God.  And  this  faith  is  bestowed  upon  us  by  the 
preached  Word,  and  not  without  means,  as  was  fully  set  forth 
above.  All  those,  therefore,  who  receive  this  Word  and  abide 
in  it  by  faith,  have  salvation,  through  the  sacred  gracious  will 
of  God,  most  assuredly.  All  those,  however,  who  reject  this 
Word  in  unbelief,  and  will  not  account  themselves  worthy  of 
eternal  life,  must  ascribe  the  guilt  of  their  damnation  not  to  God's 
predestination,  but  to  their  own  unbelief."     (145,  147.) 

When  in  1599  the  so-called  "Book  of  Staffort"  made  its 
appearance,  in  order  to  justify  the  Margrave  Ernest  Frederick  of 
Baden  for  having  abandoned  Lutheranism  in  favor  of  Calvin- 
ism, the  theologians  of  the  Electorate  of  Saxony  (among  them 
Hunnius,  Mylius,  Leyser)  were  appointed  to  issue  a  refutation. 


and  Calvinists.  In  1586  the  Colloquium  at  Moempelgart  occurred  between 
Andre^e  and  Beza,  again  bringing  up  this  controversy,  and  directing  the 
eyes  of  theologians  on  both  sides  more  than  ever  to  this  point  of  differ- 
ence. In  1587  the  Commentaries  of  Hunnius  on  Romans,  Ephesians,  and 
2  Thessalonians  followed,  in  which  he  again  set  forth  his  doctrine  ex- 
plicitly that  election  took  place  in  view  of  faith.  Now  who  bought  and 
read  Latin  works,  if  not  the  Lutheran  theologians  who,  a  short  time  prior 
to  this,  has  signed  the  F.  C.  in  all  lands?  And  this  Hunnius,  whose  doc- 
trine on  predestination  was  known  far  and  wide,  is  placed  beside  Selnecker 
and  Leyser  to  establish  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  F.  C,  also  in  this  very 
point  on  predestination;  while,  as  Missouri  says  to-day,  he  had  already 
publicly  "forsaken  the  Scriptures  and  the  Symbol",  and  indeed  understood 
and  interpreted  Article  XI  altogether  incorrectly!  Did  then  the  Lutheran 
Church  have  for  its  teachers  nothing  but  blockheads  in  these  thousands  of 
subscribers  to  the  F.  C. ;  men  who  had  no  inkling  as  to  what  doctrine 
they  had  really  subscribed  in  Article  XI,  or  who  never  noticed  that  Hun- 
nius and  his  immediate  friends  and  co-laborers  taught,  in  essential  points, 
the  very  opposite  of  what  (according  to  Missouri's  assertion)  the  Formula 
really  contained?     Is  it  not  ridiculous  to  presume  such  a  state  of  affairs? 


The  Wittenberg  Faculty.  259 

Naturally  also  the  doctrine  of  predestination  was  mentioned.  The 
Mararrave,  indeed,  did  not  wish  to  be  called  a  Calvinist,  yet  he 
attempted  "to  remove  from  the  act  of  predestination  the  con- 
sideration of  faith  in  Christ."  His  book,  accordingly,  contained 
the  admonition,  "that  we  should  beware  of  speaking  of  the  fore- 
sight of  faith  or  of  works  in  us,  as  though  we  were  so  much 
better  than  others  that  for  this  reason  God  has  chosen  us  in 
preference  to  others;  we  should  rather  speak  of  God's  eternal 
gracious  knowledge  (Gnadenerkenntnis*)."  To  this  the  theo- 
logians of  the  Electorate  of  Saxony  replied  as  follows:  "We 
desire  His  Grace,  the  Margrave,  to  have  all  our  books  and  writ- 
ings examined  (if  His  Grace  cannot  examine  them  himself), 
whether  any  of  us  has  ever  taught  that  God  has  chosen  us  for 
the  sake  of  foreseen  faith.  For  this  word  'for  the  sake  of  (prop- 
ter —  um  willen)  indicates  a  meritorious  cause,  as  though  faith 
possessed  such  worthiness  and  merit,  that  for  its  sake  men  were 
chosen  of  God.  .  .  .  But  His  Grace,  without  knowing  it,  con- 
firms our  opinion,  since  such  'gracious  knowledge'  of  God  does 
not  exist  apart  from  Christ,  inasmuch  as  God  ordains  to  salvation 
not  such  as  are  by  nature  altogether  holy,  and  hence  do  not  need 
Christ,  but  sinners  only  does  He  choose  and  ordain.  But,  if 
God  would  not  contradict  His  own  eternal  righteousness,  He 
could  ordain  sinners  unto  life  only  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merit, 
in  whom  this  predestination  took  place.  But  if  Christ's  merit  is 
considered  merely  in  itself,  without  its  application  and  appropri- 
ation by  faith,  then  the  Confession"  (of  the  Margrave)  "itself  tes- 
tifies above  that  this  merit  is  of  no  benefit  to  man.  God  does 
not  'graciously  know'  any  man  without  faith;  indeed,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  declares  that  it  is  impossible.  We  give  the 
apostle's  own  word :  Without  faith  it  is  impossible  tO'  please  God. 
Hence  we  conclude:  If  a  man  cannot  please  God  without  faith, 
then  also  he  cannot  be  graciously  known  of  God  and  ordained 
unto  salvation  without  this  faith ;  for  assuredly  His  fatherly  grace 
must  be  highly  pleased  with  those  whom  He  ordains  unto  salva- 
tion. Now^  it  is  impossible  to  please  God  without  faith,  Heb.  11. 
Therefore  also,  it  is  impossible  to  know  any  man  in  grace,  and 
ordain  him  to  salvation,  without  faith.     For  without  faith  Christ's 


*  The  Calvinists  have  always  accused  the  Lutherans  of  teaching  that 
God  has  chosen  us  "for  the  sake  of  foreseen  faith."  Missouri  dishonestly 
perverts  the  doctrine  of  its  opponents  in  the  same  way. 


260  Intuitu  Fidei. 

merit  remains  foreign  to  us,  and,  as  we  read  Gal.  5,  Christ  (with- 
out faith)  profits  us  nothing.  Pray,  how  has  Christ's  merit,  with- 
out any  consideration  of  faith,  come  so  to  profit  some  men  in 
the  sight  of  God,  that  He,  notwitlistanding  they  have  no  faith, 
nevertheless  ordained  and  chose  them  to  salvation?"  (P.  571.*) 
"We  do  not  climb  with  our  blind  reason  into  God's  secret 
counsel,  when  this  question  is  proposed  to  us"  (why  God  chose 
some,  and  why  He  did  not  choose  some) ;  "we  simply  answer  with 
the  Scriptures,  the  reason  why  God  chose  some  is  Plis  undeserved 
mercy  and  grace  and  Christ  apprehended  by  faith.  So  the  entire 
Gospel  testifies.  If  then  we  are  asked,  why  the  rest  were  not 
chosen,  we  reply  with  Christ:  Because  they  do  not  believe  in 
the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  John  3.  Moreover,, 
they  despise  the  means  ordained  of  God  for  working  faith  and 
salvation;  as  it  is  written:  It  was  necessary  that  the  word  of 
God  should  first  have  been  spoken  to  you:  but  seeing  ye  have 
put  it  from  you,  and  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of  everlasting 
life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles,  Acts  13."     (P.  SST.f) 


*  Huber  taught  that  all  men  were  chosen  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merit 
as  obtained  for  us.  Many  German  Reformed  (like  Missouri  to-day)  say 
that  only  some  men  are  chosen  for  Christ's  sake  without  regard  to  faith. 
Both  doctrines  are  rejected  by  the  theologians  of  the  F.  C,  who  say: 
"Pray,  how  has  Christ's  merit,  without  any  consideration  of  faith,  come 
so  to  profit  either  all  men,  or  some  men,  in  the  sight  of  God,  that  He, 
notwithstanding  they  have  no  faith,  nevertheless  ordained  and  chose  them 
to  salvation?"  And  of  these  men  Missouri  is  able  to  say:  They  are  "ortho- 
dox theologians",  even  as  regards  the  doctrine  of  predestination;  they 
have  "taught  the  correct  doctrine  of  predestination  and  maintained  it 
against  the  Calvinists":  —  while  this  is  the  very  central  point  in  Missouri's 
doctrine,  that  God  has  chosen  some  sinners  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merit 
merely  as  obtained  for  us  and  not  yet  appropriated  by  us,  and  has  or- 
dained them  unto  eternal  salvation  (and  hence  also  unto  all  means). 

t  As  far  as  God's  selecting  is  concerned,  these  men  of  the  F.  C.  say, 
God's  decree  is  based  on  "Christ's  merit  as  apprehended  by  faith",  while 
the  rejection  of  the  lost  is  based  on  their  unbelief  and  their  despising  the 
means.  Missouri  generally  tells  us  that  election  is  based  on  Christ's  merit, 
but  only  in  so  far  as  it  has  been  wrought  out  for  us.  And  here  "the 
mystery"  is  said  to  be,  that  God  should  be  willing  and  able  to  ordain 
some  to  salvation  in  this  way,  and  not  the  rest:  that  He  should  seek  faith 
in  these  latter,  before  being  able  to  determine  whether  they  too  are  chosen. 
Who  does  not  see  that,  if  God  can  at  all  elect  and  ordain  men  to  salvation 
merely  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merit  as  obtained  for  us,  then  it  is  no 
"mystery"  at  all  that  He  should  really  so  elect  some,  since  it  is  His  earnest 
will  to  help  all  mankind?     Then  the  real  mystery  wovild  be  this:   Why  does 


The  Wittenberg  Faculty.  261 

"The  Margrave's  Confession  desires  to  have  the  mere,  free, 
and  righteous  will  and  pleasure  of  God,  and  His  infinite  mercy 
recognized  and  admitted  as  the  only  cause  of  our  predestination. 
This  can  be  done,  when  the  particle  'only'  is  understood  to  ex- 
clude the  will  of  man,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  justification 
of  a  sinner  before  God,  where  also  no  other  cause  is  admitted 
save  only  the  pure  grace  and  mercy  of  God,  as  based  on  Christ's 
merit  and  imputed  to  faith.  For  God,  on  account  of  His  right- 
eousness, can  show  no  mercy  to  sinners,  either  in  eternal  predesti- 
nation, or  in  its  execution  in  time,  i.  e.  in  justification  and  the 
bestowal  of  salvation,  without  regarding  the  satisfaction  ren- 
dered by  Christ;  this  satisfaction  propritiates  His  righteousness, 
so  that,  without  contradicting  it.  His  mercy  can  go  forth  unto 
sinners.  If,  however,  the  Margrave's  Confession  means  to  ex- 
clude, by  this  exclusive  'only,'  also  the  suffering  and  death  of 
Jesus  Christ;  if  it  means  to  tell  us  that  God  chose  some  unto  life 
without  regard  to  Christ's  propitiatory  sacrifice;  then  we  must 
say,  it  is  now  proven  that  this  is  utterly  impossible  without  con- 
flicting with  the  immutable  righteousness  of  God.  Moreover, 
this  would  cancel  the  apostolic  declaration  (the  limiting  phrase) : 
•He  has  chosen  us  in  Christ,'  Eph.  1;  'He  has  predestinated  us 
unto  the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ  to  Himself.'  These 
passages  undoubtedly  declare  that  in  the  divine  act  of  election, 
in  ipsissimo  actu  Electionis,  no  man  was  ordained  unto  life  before, 
or  without,  or  apart  from  Christ;  on  the  contrary,  regard  to 
Christ  must  precede  ratione  ordinis,  non  temporis,  i.  e.  in  the 
very  order  of  election  itself,  not  merely  in  time.  And  this  for 
the  reason  that  God's  righteousness  would  prevent  the  election 
of  sinners  unto  salvation  before,  or  without,  or  apart  from  regard 
to  Christ's  merit.  For,  evidently,  St.  Paul  did  not  mean  to  have 
this  limiting  phrase  ('in  Christ,'  and  'by  Christ')  understood 
merelv  of  Christ's  person  (as  we   might  also   say  that  we   are 

God  refuse  to  elect  and  ordain  the  rest  in  the  same  way?  Why  must  He 
first  see  repentance  and  faith  in  these  before  declaring  salvation  also  for 
them?  And  how  can  any  sensible  man  say  that  this  is  not  inputing  to  God 
a  will  of  grace  altogether  unequal  (ungleich)?  —  on  the  one  hand,  we  are 
told,  God  ordains  some  to  salvation  merely  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merit 
as  obtained  for  us  (and  not  yet  appropriated  by  faith) ;  on  the  other  hand, 
God  will  not  ordain  the  rest  unto  salvation  merely  for  the  sake  of  Christ's 
merit  as  obtained  for  us.  but  in  their  case  looks  and  asks  also  for  the  ap- 
propriation of  Christ's  merit  by  faith! 


262  Intuitu  Fidd. 

chosen  in  the  Father  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit).  St.  Paul  here 
refers  to  a  very  especial  respectum  or  regard,  which  applies  to 
Christ  alone,  and  to  neither  of  the  other  persons  of  the  Godhead. 
He  here  refers  to  Christ  in  His  highpriestly  ofihce,  to  His  most 
holy  propitiatory  sacrifice,  which,  to  satisfy  the  righteousness 
of  God,  He  was  to  render  in  time.  This  can  and  dare  never,  in 
reason,  be  contradicted.  As  soon,  however,  as  Christ  is  placed 
in  this  respectu  into  the  actum  Electionis,  the  act  of  election, 
it  becomes  impossible  to  exclude  faith.  For  if  Christ  is  regarded 
merely  in  reference  to  His  merit,  apart  from  faith,  Huber's  uni- 
versalism  is  bound  to  follow;  then  all  men  without  distinction, 
unbelievers  as  well  as  believers,  would  be  chosen  unto  life,  since 
the  merit  of  Christ,  apart  from  its  application  or  imputation 
through  faith,  extends  over  all  men,  that  is,  has  been  obtained 
for  all.  But  God  has  chosen  only  those  who  believe,  as  the  Mar- 
grave cannot  deny,  and  his  own  definition  declares.  And  this, 
therefore,  is  the  complete  conclusion  following  from  God's  pre- 
destination and  ordination,  yea,  from  the  eternal  will  of  the 
Father:  he  who  believes  in  Christ,  the  Savior  of  the  world,  has 
eternal  life;  he  who  does  not  believe,  shall  be  damned,  Mark  16. 
From  this  it  follows  that  the  counsel  of  God  contains  two  sep- 
arate decrees,  namely  the  decree  and  conclusion  of  salvation, 
embracing  those  who  shall  believe,  and  the  conclusion  of  dam- 
nation, embracing  unbelievers.  All  this  could  not  be,  if  faith 
had  been  excluded  from  the  counsel  and  purpose  of  predestina- 
tion (p.  598)." 

"As  often  as  Hunnius  refers  to  faith  as  it  is  included  in  eter- 
nal predestination,  he  always  explicitly  mentions  its  object,  namely 
Christ,  so  that  all  the  world  may  see  that  nothing  is  ascribed  to 
faith  as  it  is  considered  in  itself,  but  only  inasmuch  as  it  looks 
to  Christ  Jesus  and  relies  on  His  bitter  suffering  and  death. 
This  point,  too,  which  especially  serves  as  an  explanation,  the 
Margrave  passes  by  in  silence,  that  the  real  meaning  of  Hunnius 
may  not  be  noted.  Once  indeed  the  Margrave's  Confessions,  in 
mentioning  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Hunnius,  and  in  speaking  of  fore- 
seen faith,  touches  upon  its  object,  namely  Christ  embraced  by 
faith;  but  this  is  only  per  occasionem  and  accidentally,  presum- 
ing to  refute  this  view  of  faith,  as  shall  be  shown  in  its  place. 
In  every  other  case  our  opponent  simply  puts  it:  prgescita  fides, 
prgescita  fides  (foreknown  faith)!  But  we  leave  it  to  any  man's 
impartial  judgment  whether  it  is  proper,  in  disputing  and  writing 


The  Wittenberg  Faculty.  263 

books  against  an  opponent,  to  steal  and  strike  away  all  those 
points  which  serve  to  explain  the  chief  question  at  issue  and  make 
clear  the  opponent's  meaning,  so  that  by  the  omission  another 
meaning  may  be  forced  upon  the  other  party"  (p.  602*). 

"The  Margrave  objects  to  the  distinction  Hunnius  makes 
when  he  declares  that  foreknown  faith  belongs  to  predestination 
and  is  its  instrumental  cause  not  as  regarded  in  itself,  but  on 
account  of  Christ  whom  faith  embraces.  Here  our  disputant 
declares:  'This  is  simply  denying  our  contention.'  He  asks: 
'What  is  this  but  saying  that  not  faith,  but  Christ  embraced  by 
faith  is  the  cause  of  our  election.'  Here  Margrave  Ernest  Fred- 
eric again  fails  to  consider  what  is  in  his  favor  and  what  is  against 
him.  For  Hunnius  and  we  with  him  accept  the  statement:  'Not 
faith,  but  Christ  embraced  by  faith,'  and  consider  the  latter  ex- 
pression more  convenient,  since  the  former  must  be  regulated 
and  explained  by  it.  He  teaches  and  confesses  throughout,  that, 
to  speak  strictly,  not  faith,  but  Christ,  still  Christ  embraced  by 
faith,  is  the  cause  of  our  eternal  salvation.  If  the  Margrave  per- 
mits such  statements  to  pass  —  and  he  wishes  to  be  regarded 
as  doing  so  —  he  simply  upsets  everything  he  has  argued  for 
with  such  great  and  useless  trouble  above.  For  if  Christ  em- 
braced by  faith  is  the  cause  of  our  election,  then  surely  faith, 
inasmuch  as  it  embraces  Christ,  must  be  included  in  predestina- 
tion; nothing  will  ever  evade  this.  But  when  now  we  are  asked 
whether  foreseen  faith  moved  God  to  elect  us,  we  answer  no.  For 
nothing  but  His  own  boundless  mercy  and  the  great  merit  of  His 
Son  moved  the  Lord  our  God  to  elect  us.  Yet  since  Christ's 
merit  is  a  cause  of  our  predestination,  and  He  without  faith 
would  be  of  no  benefit  to  us  for  our  salvation,  but  only  inasmuch 
as  He  is  imputed  to  faith  and  embraced  by  it,  therefore  Hunnius 
used  the  expression:  'Faith  is  a  cause  of  our  election';  concern- 
ing which,  however,  he  explicitly  states  that  he  will  not  cjuarrel 
with  any  one.  Moreover,  he  has  always  opposed  the  false  notion 
of  merit  in  faith,  and  has  always  and  constantly  taken  faith  as 
directed  to  Christ  alone.  If  in  the  points  under  consideration 
the  little  word  cause,  according  to  the  Margrave's  Confession, 


*  The  tactics  of  St.  Louis  are  here  finely  described!  Missouri  pos- 
sesses a  like  mastery  in  stealing  away  all  the  chief  points  which  serve  to 
bring  out  the  correct  meaning  of  its  opponents,  and  forcibly  imputes  to 
them  all  manner  of  heresies. 


264  Inhdtu  Fidei. 

could  be  employed  only  of  something  that  moves  God  to  our 
election,  then  also,  in  the  article  of  the  justification  of  a  sinner 
before  God  faith  would  not  dare  be  placed  among  the  causes 
of  justification;  unless  the  foolish  notion  were  entertained,  that 
faith  possesses  such  worthiness  as  moves  God  to  declare  us  free 
from  sin  and  just  on  account  of  it.  Yet  in  this  article  also,  not 
faith,  but  God's  mercy  together  with  Christ's  merit  is  the  moving 
cause,  absolving  us  poor  sinners  before  the  judgment-seat  of 
God,  declaring  us  just,  and  saving  us.  This  single  point  in  refu- 
tation is  enough  to  destroy  and  turn  to  water  all  the  Margrave's 
useless  argumentation  on  this  subject."     (P.  614.*) 

"Furthermore,  it  cannot  be  commended  that  the  Margrave's 
Confession  attempts  to  alter  the  point  at  issue  by  intimating  that 
we  teach  that  something  foreseen  in  us,  namely  faith,  is  a  cause 
of  our  predestination.  Yet  we  have  put  faith  into  predestination 
not  as  it  is  something  in  us,  a  virtue,  a  quality,  a  habit,  but  as  it 
regards  outside  of  us  the  propritiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ  and  con- 
fidently relies  upon  it.  But  the  Margrave's  Confession  brushes 
aside  this  correlative  or  object  of  faith  and  disputes  simply  against 
'foreseen  faith.'  In  other  respects,  when  it  is  asked  which  doc- 
trine furnishes  the  better  and  more  abiding  consolation,  that  which 
removes  all  regard  to  faith  in  Christ  from  predestination,  or  that 
which  includes  a  proper  regard  to  faith  in  God's  Son,  it  needs 
very  little  exertion  to  show  clearly  that  Calvinistic  predestination 
leads  either  to  despair  or  to  a  wild,  reckless  life,  so  that  people 
think  (and  their  thoughts  would  be  correct,  if  the  doctrine  were 
well  founded):  If  I  am  chosen,  nothing  can  harm  me,  I  may  do 
as  I  please,  I  must  still  be  saved;  I  would  be  converted  at  least 
in  the  end,  so  that  I  would  reach  the  goal  to  which  I  am  chosen. f 


*  This  single  point,  the  position  of  faith  in  justification,  as  also  in  its 
eternal  decree  as  a  necessary  part  of  predestination,  affects  the  Missourians 
to-day  just  as  it  did  the  Calvinists  of  old.  They  cannot  refute  the  point 
itself,  which  has  often  and  at  great  length  been  argued  against  them; 
henct  they  employ  the  far  more  profitable  tactics  of  remaining  still  as 
mice. 

t  In  what  respect  would  there  be  any  essential  difference  in  this  regard 
between  Calvinistic  and  Missourian  doctrine?  We  know  very  well  that 
Missouri  does  not  teach  in  regard  to  predestination  much  that  Calvin 
taught.  But  as  regards  this  absolute  and  unconditional  foreordination 
which  "never  asks  whether  we  have  obeyed  or  not",  there  is  no  difiference; 
and  the  practical  consequences  are  likewise  identical;  they  inhere  in  the 
doctrine. 


The  Wuertemberg   Theologians.  265 

But  if  I  am  not  chosen,  then  nothing  anywhere  will  help  me; 
■even  if  I  should  hear  God's  Word  all  my  life,  pray,  etc.,  it  is  all 
in  vain,  because  only  those  can  be  saved  whom  God  elected  unto 
salvatior  absolutely  and  without  regard  to  faith  in  Christ."  (P. 
620.)  Let  it  be  noted:  absolutely  is  here  identical  with:  with- 
■out  regard  to  faith!  This  is  the  teaching  of  these  theologians  of 
.the  Formula  of  Concord! 


THE  WUERTEMBERG  THEOLOGIANS. 

The  Wuertemberg  theologians,  among  them  (juite  a  number 
'of  original  subscribers  to  the  F.  C.  (e.  g.  Heerbrand.  Osiander  the 
■elder,  Margirus,  Bidembach,  Binder,  Holder,*)  often  in  their  Acta 
Huberiana  of  1507,  touch  upon  the  question  concerning  the  re- 
lation between  the  particularity  of  election  and  the  universality 
of  God's  gracious  will  and  promises.  They  never  say  that  here 
•we  have  an  insolvable  contradiction  or  an  unrevealed  mystery, 
inasmuch  as  on  the  one  hand  God  indeed  declares  that  He  would 
save  all,  yet  on  the  other  hand  actually  has  free  compassion 
only  upon  whom  He  will  have,  and  hardens  whom  He  will  harden. 
No,  the  Wuertembergers  explain  the   particularity  of  personal 


*  Jacob  Heerbrand,  born  1521,  studied  at  Wittenberg  under  Luther 
and  Melanchthon,  and  on  account  of  his  midnight  diligence  called  the 
"Swabian  night-owl."  In  1550  he  became  Superintendent  at  Herrenburg. 
In  1560  he  together  with  Jacob  Andrese  introduced  the  Reformation  in 
the  margraviate  of  Baden.  Later  he  was  made  professor  at  Tuebingen 
beside  Andrese  and  signed  the  F.  C.  Since  1592  he  took  part  in  the  Huber 
controversy,  and  in  the  most  important  writings  of  the  Wuertembergers 
against  Huber  his  name  heads  the  list.  But  his  fundamental  thoughts 
were  correct  already  long  before  this  time;  this  appears  clearly  from  ex- 
pressions published  by  him  20  years  earlier.  (For  instance  the  decree 
concerning  the  bestowal  of  salvation,  election  in  the  narrowest  sense,  the 
"separation  of  persons"  in  those  to  be  saved  and  those  not  to  be  saved  — 
he  does  not  place  it  outside  of  the  universal  counsel  of  grace,  nor  beside 
it  as  a  second  counsel,  but  into  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation,  sub- 
ordinating it  to  this  counsel,  accordingly  making  it  depend  on  the  appre- 
hension of  Christ's  merit  by  faith.)  Then  already  he  wrote:  'The  fact, 
that  the  number  chosen  to  eternal  life  is  certain  and  known  to  God,  does 
not  militate  against  the  universal  and  altogether  gracious  promises  of  God. 
Although  all  are  called,  and  God  says  that  He  would  make  all  men  happy, 
yet  we  must  not  suppose  that  God  will  save  all  men,  no  matter  how  they 

live  and  conduct  themselves On  the  contrary  this  universal 

j)romise  must  be  restricted,  in  the  way  prescribed  by  the  sacred  Scriptures 


266  Intuihi  Fidei. 

election  from  the  revealed  eternal  purpose  of  God:  "He  that  be- 
lieveth  shall  be  saved";  and  they  appeal  repeatedly  to  the  words 
of  the  Fornu'tla  of  Concord:  "In  Christ  we  should  seek  the  eternal 
election  of  the  Father,  who  in  His  eternal  counsel  decided  that 
outside  of  those  wdio  acknowledge  His  Son  and  truly  believe  in 
Him  He  would  save  none."  Accordingly  the  Wuertemberg 
signers  of  the  F.  C.  understood  the  Formula  as  deducing  the 
particularity  of  election  from  the  necessary  restriction  of  the 
divine  purpose:  "that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  For  God  did  not  decide  with- 
out anything  further,  either  that  He  would  have  all  men,  or  that 
He  would  only  have  some  men  come  to  salvation;  on  the  con- 
trary, as  far  as  the  actual  attainment  of  salvation,  and  likewise 
as  far  as  the  decree  of  election  is  concerned,  God's  gracious  will 
was  restricted  by  the  purpose:  "He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved." 
This  explanation  of  the  particularity  of  election  and  of  its  rela- 
tion to  the  universal  will  of  grace  Missouri  rejects  as  a  solution 
of  the  mystery,  as  false  doctrine,  as  a  forsaking  of  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Symbol.  It  asserts  —  do  not  laugh,  dear  reader!  — that 
it  understands  the  F.  C.  far  better,  and  knows  far  better  what 
the  true  meaning  of  the  Confession  is  in  this  article,  than  the 
original  authors,  signers,  defenders,  and  Church  of  the  Formula 


themselves,  to  all  those  who  repent  and  believe  in  Christ.  ...  A  godly 
man  hears  from  the  Word  of  God  that  all  who  truly  believe  are  chosen  of 
God  to  eternal  life."  (Disp.  de  Electione,  th.  89  sqq.)  • —  Luke  Osiander, 
sen.,  since  1569  Superintendent  at  Stuttgart;  was  "very  busy  with  the 
Formula  of  Concord"  (Joecher);  attended  the  Colloquium  at  Moempel- 
gart  in  1586  as  one  of  the  participants,  when  Jacob  Andreae  in  the  name 
of  the  Lutherans  publicly  defended  the  proposition  attacked  by  the  Cal- 
vinist  Beza  as  Pelagian:  "Faith  is  a  cause  of  election;  took  an  especially 
active  part  in  the  controversy  with  Huber;  died  in  1604.  —  John  Magirus, 
born  1527,  died  1604.  —  Eberhard  Bidenbach,  born  1528,  since  1557  Dr.  of 
Theology,  died  1597.  —  Wilhelm  Holder,  Superintendent  at  Stuttgart, 
died  1608.  — -  Christopher  Binder,  born  1519,  since  1562  General  Superin- 
tendent at  Adelberg,  where  he  signed  the  F.  C.  —  All  these  were  theo- 
logians of  the  old  days,  who  together  with  Gerlach,  Leyser,  Hunnius, 
Chytra;u3  and  others  opposed  Huber,  and  taught  that  particular  election, 
or  the  "separation  of  persons"  into  salvandos  et  non-salvandos,  took 
place  with  respect  (respectus,  consideratio)  to  foreseen  future  faith,  and 
does  therefore  by  no  means  contradict  the  universal  promises  of  grace, 
but  is  to  be  subordinated  to  them  in  clear  agreement  with  the  words:  "He 
that  believeth  shall  be  saved."  They  indeed  taught  both:  1)  the  universal' 
will  of  grace,  and  2)  particular  election;  but  not  like  Missouri,  as  two 
different  counsels   standing  side  by  side,   and   really   contradicting  each 


The  IVuerteinberg   Theologians.  2(:i/ 

of  Concord  itself.  But  let  us  hear  the  testimony  of  the  Wuertem- 
berg  theologians  of  the  F.   C. 

"We  do  not  understand  the  particularity  of  election  in  the 
Calvinistic  sense,  as  though  God  determined  absolutely,  in  His 
hidden  counsel,  simply  according  to  His  mere  will  and  pleasure, 
to  save  only  some  few  among  men,  and  to  ordain  all  the  rest, 
according  to  His  eternal  and  unchangeable  counsel,  unto  dam- 
nation. On  the  contrary,  the  predestination  and  election  of  God 
in  the  narrow  sense  is  called  particular,  because  it  embraces  only 
those  who  by  true  faith  accept  the  proffered  grace  and  merit  of 
Christ,  appropriate,  and  retain  it  till  the  end.  For  predestina- 
tion is  nothing  but  God's  eternal  will,  counsel,  purpose,  and 
pleasure  to  save  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  those  who  believe. 
Voluntatem  Dei  antecedentem,  the  antecedent  and  universal 
will  of  God,  is  the  name  given  to  God's  universal  love  for  the 
whole  human  race:  inasmuch  as  He  has  compassion  upon  all 
alike,  gave  His  Son  as  a  Savior  for  the  whole  world,  offers  such 
grace  to  all  nations  most  earnestly,  and  desires  that  all  men  may 
accept  it  by  faith  and  be  saved.  In  this  gracious  will  of  God  no 
man  was  forgotten  and  none  excludel.  Voluntatem  Consequen- 
tem,  the  subsequent  will  of  God,  is  the  name  given  to  the  divine 
decision,  that  God  ordains  to  salvation,  and  in  His  good  time 
glorifies,  those  who  accept  the  proffered  universal  grace  and  the 
Redeemer  Christ,  that  on  the  other  hand,  however.  He  rejects 
and  condemns  those  who  do  not  accept  the  proffered  grace  and 
merit  of  Christ;  and  this  on  account  of  their  impenitence  and  un- 
belief, despising  and  rejecting  the  means  of  salvation."*  (Page  3.) 

other,  without  the  possibility  of  their  being  harmonized  by  our  knowl- 
edge from  the  revealed  Gospel.  They  find  this  harmony  of  the  universal 
will  of  grace  with  the  particular  decree  of  salvation  clearly  revealed,  and 
together  with  the  F.  C.  they  explain  the  separation  of  men  into  elect  and 
non-elect  from  the  revealed  will  of  the  Father:  Whosoever  seeth  the  Son, 
and  believeth  in  Him  hath  eternal  life.  Yet  this  very  doctrine  of  election 
unto  salvation  Missouri  ridicules  as  a  "s'^lf-evident  conclusion",  an  at- 
tempt ''to  make  the  mystery  of  predestination  plausible  to  reason",  etc., 
and  finds  in  the  F.  C.  an  election  of  men  devoid  of  faith  and  irreconcilable 
with  the  universal  will  of  grace! 

*  This  then  is  the  "correct  doctrine  of  predestination",  as  these  men 
of  the  F.  C.  taught  and  defended  it  from  the  Scriptiu^es  and  the  Confession. 
This  very  doctrine  of  the  original  signers  of  the  F.  C.  erring  Missouri  now 
slanders  as  a  miserable  "self-evident  conclusion"  from  the  universal  will 
of  grace.  Yet,  because  ii  is  too  cowardly  to  say  right  out  that  it  rejects 
and  antagonizes  as  false  and  erroneous  the  clear  doctrine  of  these  F.  C. 


268  Intuitu  Fidei. 

"Faith  is  placed  into  God's  election  only  as  an  ordained 
means  or  hand,  with  which  we  embrace  and  draw  to  ourselves 
the  merit  of  Christ  (on  account  of  which  we  were  chosen).  And 
this  in  the  manner  as  we  are  justified  and  saved,  not  for  the  sake 
of  faith,  but  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  whose  merit  we  apply  to  our- 
selves by  faith.  For  without  faith  we  have  no  part  or  common 
lot  in  Christ  and  His  blessings,  and  are  not  competent  of  receiv- 
ing either  election,  justification,  sanctification,  or  the  promised 
glorification."     (Page  15.) 

"Eph.  1,  4,  furnishes  no  hold  at  all  (for  Huber)  to  prove  a  uni- 
veijsal  election  of  all  men.  For  Paul  here  speaks  plainly  of  the 
'saints  and  the  faithful,'  and  defines  election  as  regards  Christ; 
but  where  He  is  not  known  and  not  embraced  by  faith  there  no 
election  takes  place."  (Page  38.)  In  the  German  edition  we 
read:  "Paul  says,  moreover,  that  we  are  chosen  in  Christ.  For 
those  who  do. not  acknowledge  and  accept  Him  by  faith  no  pre- 
destination takes  place."*     (Page  50.) 

"We  could  not  conceive  that  you  (Huber)  wished  to  have 
the  orthodox  opinion  of  the  F.  C.  overthrown,  according  to  which 
election  applies  only  to  God's  children.  We  see  that  the  origin 
of  your  error  lies  in  your  failure  to  understand  that  between  the 
universal  love  of  God  and  the  absolute  decree  concerning  only 
a  few  who  necessarily  will  be  saved,  there  lies  a  certain  middle 
path,  namely  this  very  order  that  all  believers  in  Christ  are  chosen, 
and  besides  these  none  shall  be  saved."  (Page  71.)  In  the  Ger- 
man text  we  read:  "Hence  this,  as  far  as  we  can  find,  is  the  chief 
cause  of  your  error:  you  fail  to  note  that  between  God's  universal 
love  and  His  mere  counsel  and  will  (by  which  some  men  are  or- 
dained to  salvation  so  that  they  cannot  lose  it)  there  is  a  certain 
middle  path,"  etc.f 


theologians  and  of  all  later  acknowledged  orthodox  teachers  of  our 
ChurcVi,  it  "makes  lies  its  refuge  and  under  falsehood  hides  itself"  (Is.  28, 
15),  and  writes  with  an  impudent  brow:  "Our  Synod  acknowledges  most 
decidedly  that  these  theologians  taught  the  correct  doctrine  of  predesti- 
nation"! ! 

*  So  taught  the  original  confessors  of  the  F.  C.  and  thereby  held  "the 
correct  doctrine"  of  predestination,  as  Missouri  tells  us.  Of  course,  Mis- 
souri also  declares  that  this  was  not  the  correct  doctrine,  but  rather  a 
fundamental  error,  with  which  it  would  have  nothing  to  do ;  yea,  that  this 
is  rationalism! 

t  This  "middle  path"  between  the  universal  will  of  grace  and  the  Cal- 
vinistic  "mere  will"  Missouri  also  denies,  and  refuses  to  admit  an  election 


The  Wuertemberg   Theologians.  269 

"We  readily  conclude  that  the  particularity  of  election  is  em- 
braced and  included  in  the  universal  Gospel  promises  of  grace. 
(Facile  concedimus,  quod  Electionis  particularitas  ad  Evangel- 
icarum  promissionum  universalitatem  subalterne  se  habeat.)" 
(Page  9G,  148.) 

Ruber  appealed  to  the  fact  that  Brenz  and  others  had  spoken 
of  a  universal  election  of  all  men.  The  Wuertembergers  reply: 
"These  excellent  teachers,  some  of  whom  already  rest  in  God, 
never  held  the  opinion  that  all  men  without  any  difference  (Turks 
also  and  all  unbelievers  and  the  impenitent)  are  ordained  and 
chosen  to  salvation,  absolutely,  and  without  any  regard  to  faith."* 
(Page  159.) 

"The  Saxon  Book  of  Msitation"  —  i.  e.  the  "Thorough  De- 
fense" of  the  well-known  Articles  of  Visitation  —  "demands  three 
things  as  constituting  complete  election.  First,  the  most  gra- 
cious will  of  God,  according  to  which  He  had  compassion  upon 
the  whole  human  race  fallen  in  Adam,  and  sought  ways  and 
means  for  rescuing  it.  Secondly,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  His 
perfect  and  most  holy  merit.  Thirdly,  true  and  living  faith, 
through  which  we  make  ourselves  partakers  of  Christ's  .propita- 
tion.  This  is  far  different  from  Huber's  claim,  that  election  took 
place  absolutely  and  without  regard  to  faith.  Huber,  therefore, 
wrongs  the  authors  of  this  book,  writing  as  though  they  taught 
a  universal  election  embracing  even  the  unbelieving."t  (Page 
164.) 

Huber  had  written:  "In  the  whole  controversy  there  is  no 
question  at  all  concerning  faith  as  applying  and  appropriating 

of  believers  as  such.  It  prefers  to  teach  that  God's  gracious  will  is  double 
and  dissimilar:  in  one  instance  a  will  which  decrees  without  anything 
further  (for  the  elect);  in  the  other  a  will  which  does  not  decree,  a  will 
which  waits  for  faith. 

*  Missouri  indeed  does  not  say  with  Huber  that  all  men  are  chosen, 
but  with  the  Calvinists  that  only  some  "are  ordained  and  chosen  to  salva- 
tion, absolutely,  and  without  any  regard  to  faith."  This  difiference,  how- 
ever, does  not  efifcct  the  essence  of  the  idea  of  election,  but  only  the  extent 
of  election.     Huber,  in  this  respect,  is  better  situated  than  Missouri. 

t  And  Missouri  wrongs  these  theologians  of  the  F.  C.  and  of  the 
Articles  of  Visitation  still  more,  for  it  appeals  to  them  as  though  they  had 
taught,  in  harmony  with  Calvin  and  Missouri,  even  a  particular  election 
which  applies  to  the  unbelieving.  According  to  Huber's  election  of  men 
without  faith  salvation  at  least  was  open  to  all  men  alike;  but  according  to 
Missouri's  election  this  is  not  the  case,  since  persevering  faith  is  said  tO' 
flow  from  this  election  which  does  not  apply  to  all. 


270  Intuitu  Fidei. 

to  man  the  blessing  of  redemption;  the  whole  question  is  on  the 
will  and  counsel  of  God  and  the  redemption  as  wrought  out  by- 
Christ. "  The  Wuertemberg  theologians  of  the  F.  C.  answer: 
"This  is  most  assuredly  the  question  at  issue  whether  the  Actus 
or  work  of  election  is  something  absolute,  standing  by  itself,  with- 
out regard  to  faith,  or  something  dependent  on  faith,  and  hence 
applying  only  to  the  godly  and  faithful  (an  actus  electionis  in  se, 
absque  respectu  fidei  consummatus,  an  vero  respectu  fidei  limi- 
tatus)."     (Page  110,  173.) 

Again  Huber  wrote  that  Hunnius  "invented  a  new  opinion" 
when  he  taught  the  particular  election  of  believers.  The  Wuer- 
tembergers  reply:  "How  can  Huber  say  that  Dr.  Hunnius  be- 
gan this  doctrine,  that  God  ordained  to  salvation  only  those  who 
retain  faith  till  the  end,  and  afterwards  defended  it  from  jealousy 
against  him,  when  our  Church  many  years  ago  universally  ap- 
proved of  this  doctrine  and  accepted  it?"     (Page  174.) 

"When  we  ask  what  divine  election  is,  when  we  seek  to  know 
which  men  God  chose  unto  eternal  life,  to  which  of  them  He  will 
give  the  kingdom  of  glory  and  eternal  salvation,  we  answer  cor- 
rectly that  not  all  men,  but  only  those  who  believe  are  elected 
unto  salvation.  This  is  what  the  Book  of  Concord  explicitly  and 
in  so  many  words  declares.  The  words  read:  Predestination  or 
the  eternal  election  of  God  is  occupied  only  with  the  godly,  be- 
loved children  of  God,"  etc.  (Page  294.)  We  cannot  deny,  if 
we  wish  to  speak  according  to  the  norm  of  divine  truth,  that  God 
does  not  give  eternal  life  to  all  men  alike,  but  only  to  those  who 
believe.  And  Paul  means  the  same  thing  when  he  says  that  we 
are  chosen  in  Christ,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  (Page 
297.) 

"The  Scriptures  declare  that  God  indeed  would  have  all  men 
come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth  and  be  saved,  but  that  He  pre- 
destinated and  ordained  to  salvation  only  those  who  persever- 
ingly  believe  in  Christ.  We  do  not  deny  this  universal  ordina- 
tion, or  rather  this  universal  will  of  God,  that  the  whole  human 
race  may  be  brought  back  to  salvation  by  faith  in  Christ.  But 
this  is  not  predestination  and  the  ordination  unto  salvation  as 
designated  and  explained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  since  this  is  occupied  only  with  those  who  by  true 
faith  embrace  and  apply  to  their  own  person  and  appropriate  the 
gracious  will  and  counsel  of  God  regarding  His  pardon  for  the 
whole  human  race.     'This  predestination  and  ordination  unto 


77^1?  Wuertemberg   Theologians.  271 

salvation  took  place  throug-h  Christ  and  in  Christ'  —  but  not  out- 
side of  faith  or  without  regard  to  faith,  since  without  faith  Christ 
does  not  be  ^t^t  us."*     (Page  305.) 

"Although  there  is  essentially  but  one  will  of  God,  yet,  that 
we  may  treat  with  you  (Huber),  and  for  the  sake  of  greater  clear- 
ness, as  though  it  were  in  school,  we  will  call  God's  universal  good 
pleasure  His  antecedent  will,  concerning  which  we  believe  and 
confess,  in  accord  with  the  reasons  shown  from  the  Scriptures 
(Ezek.  .33;  1  Tim.  2;  etc.),  that  it  is  truly  universal  and  is  occu- 
pied with  all  men.  .  .  .  According  to  this  will  God  thirsts 
with  earnest  desire  for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  offers  it  to  all, 
begrudges  it  to  none,  desires  that  all  sinners  may  be  converted 
and  live.  In  this  charitable  will  and  good  pleasure  of  God,  de- 
siring to  rescue  the  whole  human  race  and  to  save  all  by  faith  in 
Christ,  not  a  single  soul  among  them  all  has  been  forgotten  or 
omitted.  .  .  .  But  because  our  merciful  and  kind  God  fore- 
saw in  His  omniscience  that  all  men  would  not  by  the  obe- 
dience of  faith  accept  the  mercy  proffered  them,  but  that  most  of 
them  would  reject  it  by  unbelief.  He  so  defined  His  will  regard- 
ing men,  that  those  who  believe  are  really  to  enjoy  the  proffered 
blessings  and  receive  salvation,  but  those  who  do  not  believe  are 
to  remain  without  these  blessings  and  are  to  perish.  Many  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  prove  this  with  the  greatest  clearness:  Mark 
16,  16;  John  3,  18;  Matt.  11,  27.  This  further  definition  of  God's 
judgment  we  call  His  subsequent  will.  And  this  will  (unlike  the 
former)  is  by  no  means  universal,  but  is  limited  by  its  regard  to 
the  obedience  of  faith,  or  to  disobedience,  on  the  one  hand  to 
believers,  on  the  other  hand  to  unbelievers.  This  will  is  further- 
more unlike  the  antecedent  will  which  has  no  contrary  decree; 
it  is  divided  into  contrary  decrees  by  its  regard  to  the  believing 
and  to  the  non-believing,  those  who  believe  are  to  be  saved,  and 
those  who  do  not  believe  are  to  be  damned.  After  prefacing  this, 
we  must  say,  if  we  would  deal  uprightly  with  you,  that  we  can- 
not approve  of  your  removing  the  consideration  of  faith  from  the 
antecedent  will  of  God  (or  from  universal  election),  and  of  your 
saying  that  it  is  Pelagian  and  absurd  to  consider  faith  in  the 


*  Even  these  Wuertemberg  men  of  the  F.  C.  use  the  expression : 
"Christ  does  not  benefit  us  without  faith."  Missouri,  however,  "self- 
evidently  abhors"  it,  although  in  its  established  and  fixed  meaning  it  con- 
stitutes a  universally  accepted  axiom  (fundamental  truth)  of  evangelical 
theology. 


272  Intnitii  Fidei. 

especial  election  of  believers.  This  you  will  never  be  able  to 
prove  with  a  single  Scriptural  passage.  For  God  'n  His  eternal 
counsel  did  not  ordain  men  to  salvation  absolutely,  l^  t  in  Christ, 
through  Christ,  and  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  and  througn  the  regu- 
lar means.  For  just  as  God  in  His  antecedent.. and  universal  will 
wanted  all  men  to  be  saved,  so  also  "He  wanted  all  men  to  be- 
lieve in  Christ,  for  whose  sake  we  are  chosen;  as  the  apostle  says: 
God  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  come  to  a  knowledge 
of  the  truth.  And  God  did  not  in  His  counsel,  purpose,  and 
decree  ordain  a  single  man  unto  life  absolutely,  without  regard 
to  faith  (in  His  antecedent  will);  but  as  He  wanted  all  to  be 
saved,  so  He  also  wanted  all  to  believe.  .  .  .  Nor  does  faith  come 
into  consideration  only  at  the  time  when  Peter  or  Paul  begins  to 
believe  and  appropriate  the  grace  of  universal  election;  on  thfe 
contrary,  according  to  the  Scriptures  the  consideration  of  faith 
IS  a  necessary  element  in  the  doctrine  and  order  of  the  counsel 
and  good  pleasure  of  God  in  saving  man.  For  as  God  purposed 
to  save  all  men  through  Christ,  so  also  He  wanted  all  to  believe  in 
Christ,  and  determined  to  save  no  man  without  faith."  (Part  2, 
p.  28,  29.) 

"Election  and  reprobation  are  in  many  respects  like  saving 
and  damning.  For  as  man  is  justified  and  saved  by  the  pure 
grace  of  God,  on  account  of  Christ's  merit,  not  on  account  of  faith, 
but  through  faith,  and  as  he  is  damned  on  account  of  unbelief; 
so  also  man  is  elected  unto  life  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  not  for  the 
sake  of  faith,  and  yet  not  without  regard  to  faith,  through  which 
Christ,  for  whose  sake  we  are  elected,  must  be  embraced.  But 
the  unbelieving  are  rejected  of  God  (according  to  His  subsequent 
will,  which  takes  into  consideration  the  obedience  of  faith  or  the 
disobedience)  on  account  of  unbelief,  which  constitutes  the  first 
cause  of  rejection,  and  originates  therefore  not  in  God,  but  in 
man."     (Page  101.) 

"In  all  his  writings  Huber  maltreats  foreseen  faith  in  an  as- 
tonishing way.  He  dreams  that  when  this  faith  is  abolished,  the 
whole  doctrine  of  particular  election  will  fall  to  the  ground.  That 
the  reader  may  understand  our  opinion  in  the  question  correctly, 
we  will  state  the  whole  matter  briefly.  In  the  first  place,  when 
we  speak  strictly,  it  is  more  correct  to  say  that  God  knows,  than 
that  He  foreknows,  that  He  sees  as  in  the  present,  than  that  He 
foresees.  All  things  are  present  before  God.  Secondly,  when 
we  treat  this  article  carefully,  it  must  be  said  that  foreseen  faith 


The  Wuertemberg  Theologians.  273 

is  not  the  foundation  of  election;  this  foundation  is  the  will,  pur- 
pose and  eternal  good  pleasure  of  God  desiring  to  save  believers 
in  Christ,  1  Cor.  1 :  'It  pleased  God  (and  this  in  eternity)  by  the 
foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe,'  meaning  sim- 
ply, to  elect  believers  unto  life.  Whoever  then  believes  in  the 
course  of  time  belongs,  according  to  this  eternal  good  pleasure 
and  decree  of  God,  to  the  number  of  the  elect  and  is  saved ;  who- 
ever does  not  believe  is,  by  virtue  of  an  eternal  decree,  damned. 
This  eternal  decree  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  Gospel,  Mark  16;  John 
3.  In  the  third  place,  God,  to  speak  humanly,  foreknew  who 
among  men  would  obey  His  eternal  counsel  and  ordination ;  and 
they  who  were  thus  foreseen  of  God  were  ordained  unto  eternal 
life,  according  to  God's  eternal  counsel  and  purpose.  In  the 
same  way  God  from  eternity  foreknew  who  among  men  would 
not  obey  His  eternal  counsel  and  ordination,  and  these  are  by 
the  same  God  given  over  to  death  on  account  of  their  unbelief, 
according  to  His  just  judgment.  Hence  it  is  clear  how  God 
ordered  His  election  according  to  His  eternal  counsel  (which 
demands  faith) ;  and  how,  when  He  foresaw,  or  saw,  that  all  men 
would  not  obey  His  universal  counsel.  He  subordinated  to  His 
universal  will  (according  to  which  He  would  have  all  men  be- 
lieve and  be  saved  by  faith  in  Christ)  this  decree,  that  believers 
shall  be  saved,  and  non-believers  shall  be  damned.  And  this 
subordination  is  implicitly  contained  in  the  further  definition  of 
the  universal  will  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  absolute,  but  limited  in 
view  of  faith."*     (Page  102.) 

"When  it  is  asked,  what  the  character  of  this  eternal  act  of 
God  (election)  is,  then  let  Huber  know  that  it  is  defined  by  the 


*  Really,  one  does  not  know  what  to  say  or  think,  when  he  reads  such 
and  similar  exceedingly  clear  and  precise  expositions  of  the  doctrine  of 
our  fathers  (in  this  case  the  F.  C.  theologians  of  Wuertemberg),  and  then 
calls  to  mind  how  Dr.  Walther,  even  yet  in  1872,  when  he  claimed  to  have 
recognized  this  very  doctrine  already  long  before  as  erroneous  and  ob- 
jectionable, could  write  ard  print  such  declarations  as  this:  "Our  Synod 
acknowledges  most  decidedly  that  the  theologians  of  our  Church,  also  in 
the  17th  century,  taught  the  correct  doctrine  of  predestination,  and  main- 
tained it  against  the  Calvmists."  As  the  expositions  of  this  doctrine  are 
so  extensive,  so  unmistakable  in  their  clearness  and  precision,  and  so 
exceedingly  numerous  in  the  writings  of  our  fathers,  and  as  Dr.  Walther 
could  not  but  know  them  well,  there  remains  but  one  conclusion  :  either 
the  Synod  at  that  time  really  was  unanimous  in  this  doctrine,  or  Dr. 
Walther  has  lied  most  shamefully. 


274  Intuitu  Fidei, 

order,  which  God  Himself  estabHshed  in  His  eternal  counsel, 
that  those  who  believe  in  Christ  shall  be  saved.  Those  of  whom 
He  foreknew  that  they  would  believe  in  Christ,  He  foreordained 
especially  unto  eternal  life  according  to  this  order  established  by 
Him  in  eternity.  From  this  it  is  clear  that  personal  faith  is  not 
the  foundation  or  chief  cause  of  election,  since  faith  was  placed 
in  the  counsel  of  election  only  as  a  means  for  receiving  salvation. 
The  true  foundation  is  God's  will  itself,  according  to  which  it 
pleased  Him  in  eternity  to  save  men  in  this  and  in  no  other  way 
and  order.  Huber  fails  of  the  truth  in  explaining  particular  elec- 
tion, when  he  says  that  election,  which  on  God's  part  is  universal, 
becomes  particular  through  man's  fault,  and  is  called  particular 
in  respect  to  its  application  and  result.  Although  the  cause  of 
this  particularization  is  in  man,  yet  election  is  called  particular 
not  merely  in  respect  to  its  application  or  result;  for  God  Himself 
in  His  eternal  counsel  formed  the  decree,  that  —  as  He  would 
have  all  men  to  be  saved  through  faith  in  Christ  according  to  His 
antecedent  will,  so  now  since  all  would  not  obey  the  order  He 
established  —  those  who  believe  shall  be  saved,  non-believers, 
however,  shall  be  damned.  Election  therefore  is  particular,  and 
is  called  such  in  respect  to  this  eternal  decree  of  God,  not  merely 
in  respect  to  the  application  made  in  time."     (Page  145.) 

"Just  as  predestination  did  not  take  place  without  regard  to 
Christ's  merit,  so  also  it  did  not  take  place  without  regard  to  faith 
in  Him.  Neither  will  it  help  Huber  out  to  add  to  his  election 
the  declaration,  that  there  are  many  who  do  not  embrace  the 
blessing  of  election,  and  hence  are  guilty  of  unbeHef  and  just 
damnation  because  of  the  rejection  of  this  blessing.  For  Huber 
claims*  that  the  eternal  act  of  election  itself  needs  nothing  be- 
side the  mercy  of  God  and  merit  of  Christ  to  make  it  complete, 
and  that  as  far  as  God  is  concerned  all  men  are  elect  whether  they 
believe  or  not.  Afterwards,  however,  he  tells  us,  when  God  re- 
vealed this  mystery.  He  instituted  the  order,  that  those  who  be- 
lieve (i.  e.  appropriate  this  grace)  should  also  enjoy  it  unto  sal- 
vation, whilst  those  who  do  not  believe  (i.  e.  do  not  appropriate 
this  grace)  shall  not  enjoy  it.  Furthermore,  Huber  with  his  im- 
aginary election  subverts  the  particular  election  of  believers  which 
is  taught  in  the  Scriptures  and  in  the  Book  of  Concord;  and  this 

*  Just  like  Missouri  to-day,  which  likewise  considers  God's  mercy 
and  Christ's  merit,  considered  in  and  by  itself,  the  adequate  cause  of  par- 
ticular ordination  to  salvation. 


The  Wtierteviberg   Theologians.  275 

cannot  be  tolerated  in  the  orthodox  Church.  But  we  have  al- 
ready shown  above  that  faith  is  taken  into  consideration  already 
in  the  eternal  act  of  election  itself,  and  dare  not  be  placed  merely 
into  the  application."     (173.) 

"If  Huber  had  included  the  consideration  of  faith  in  the  act 
of  election  itself,  he  never  would  have  been  able  to  deny  on  the 
part  of  God  the  particular  election  of  believers,  nor  would  he  have 
opposed  to  it  his  universal  election.  For  it  has  been  demon- 
strated above  that  a  universal  election  or  will  of  God  which  in- 
cludes the  consideration  of  faith,  is  not  contradictory  to  the  elec- 
tion of  believers.  But  as  Huber  opposes  his  (universal)  election 
to  the  particular  election  of  believers  in  such  a  way  as  of  necessity 
to  abolish  the  latter,  it  follows  that  his  election  contains  no  con- 
sideration of  faith.  For  to  say  with  Huber:  'AH  men  are  chosen 
in  Christ  unto  Hfe  prior  to  any  consideration  of  faith,'  or,  which 
is  the  same:  'Without  regard  to  faith';  and  then  to  say:  'Only 
those  who  believe  are  chosen'  —  is  to  state  a  fiat  contradiction. 
But  as  Huber  would  like  to  persuade  his  readers  that  he  has 
spoken  only  of  the  complete  act  of  election,  inasmuch  as  he  states 
that  indeed  all  should  believe,  we  desire  to  let  the  reader  know 
that  Huber's  meaning  was  this:  God  has  chosen  and  ordained 
all  men,  believing  and  non-believing,  unto  life  in  Christ,  prior  to 
and  without  any  consideration  of  faith  or  unbelief.  Then,  after 
this  act  was  complete  through  God's  mercy  and  Christ's  merit, 
God  added  the  condition  of  faith,  and  appointed  unto  men  that 
they  should  believe  and  by  faith  receive  the  life  in  Christ.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  first  thing  in  Huber's  order  of  election  is  this,  all 
men,  whether  future  believers  or  not,  are  chosen  unto  life  in 
Christ  and  for  the  sake  of  Christ;  the  second  is,  they  are  chosen 
unto  this  that  they  may  believe,  and  thus  by  faith  in  Christ  may 
follow  (as  he  himself  expresses  it)  whither  in  the  act  of  God 
(which  is  complete  through  God's  mercy  and  Christ's  merit)  they 
were  chosen."*     (Page  196.) 

*  Here  it  appears  how  closely  Huber's  idea  of  election  is  related  to 
that  of  modern  Missouri.  We  have  only  to  put  instead  of  "all  men"  the 
words  "only  a  few"  who  are  considered  in  this  election  (which  is  unto 
faith)  as  persons  without  faith.  Huber  regards  the  act  of  election  as  being 
complete  only  through  the  mercy  of  God  and  merit  of  Christ,  taken  in 
and  for  itself;  Missouri  does  the  same.  Huber  excludes  any  regard  to 
future  faith  from  the  act  itself;  Missouri  does  the  same.  Huber,  however, 
adds  that  the  elect  are  also  chosen  that  they  should  believe;  Missouri  does 
the  same.     Yet  Huber's  election  of  persons  without  faith  is  more  evan- 


276  Intuitu  Fidei. 


JOHN  WIGAND. 


John  Wigand*  in  his  Syntagma  of  the  year  1575  defines  pre- 
destination entirely  in  accord  with  the  doctrinal  manner  of  his 
time  and  hence  also  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  He  says,  it  is 
"in  general  the  decrees  which  God  formed  and  afterwards  revealed 
in  the  Word,  regarding  the  causes  and  the  manner  of  saving  and 
damning."  (Chemnitz  in  his  Examen  has  the  same  broad  idea 
of  predestination.)  He  then  proceeds  to  divide  "predestination" 
into  6  separate  decrees  termed  "res  praedestinatse"  (things  pre- 
destined). The  third  decree  reads:  "It  is  a  decree  of  God,  that 
He  will  work  a  saving  conversion  in  the  hearts  of  men  through 
the  hearing  of  the  Word,  namely  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ, 
and  that  He  will  save  those  who  believe  without  any  merit  or 
works  of  the  Law,  but  that  He  will  blind  and  damn  those,  be  they 
Jews  or  Gentiles,  who  despise  the  Word  and  obstinately  resist  it. 
That  this  decree  is  revealed  in  the  Word  of  God  Paul  teaches 
Rom.  10.  He  teaches  that  according  to  this  decree  the  Jews 
are  rejected,  and  the  Gentiles  received  unto  grace  —  when  they 
hear  the  Word  and  believe  in  Christ." 

"Tliis  decree,  to  save  without  any  merit  all  those  who  obey 
the  Gospel  and  believe  in  Christ,  Paul  refers  to  the  will  revealed 
in  the  Word  and  the  grace  therein  promised;  as  it  is  said:  I 
will  have  compassion  on  whom  I  will  have  compassion.     And: 


gelical  and  scriptural  than  that  of  Missouri.  He  excludes  no  one  from  his 
election;  whereas  Missouri  makes  the  highest  manifestation  of  God's 
love  and  mercy,  ordination  unto  salvation,  absolutely  particular,  makes 
of  it  a  second  and  that  an  absolutely  particular  will  of  grace,  and  then  at- 
tempts to  see  in  this  twofold,  dissimilar  will  of  love  and  grace  a  very 
"wonderful  mystery"! 

*  Our  Synod  of  the  F.  C.  theologians  has  not  yet  closed  its  sessions. 
It  is  exceedingly  important  that  the  Lutheran  Church  of  the  time  of  the 
F.  C.  should  give  us  clear  and  precise  testimony,  by  its  chief  representa- 
tives, in  what  sense  it  universally  received  the  F.  C.  as  its  confession  — 
whether  in  the  sense  which  the  later  Lutheran  Church  confessedly  found 
therein,  or  in  the  sense  which  Missouri  now  attempts  to  find.  Even  if 
the  sense  of  the  Confession,  according  to  the  language  used,  were  ambigu- 
ous and  doubtful,  which  however  is  not  at  all  the  case  on  this  point,  it 
would  belong  to  the  unanimous  voice  of  the  Church  which  had  just  made 
this  Confession  its  own,  to  pronounce  the  decision  as  to  the  sense  which 
must  be  attached  to  the  language  of  the  Confession,  and  how  it  must  be 
understood  and  interpreted,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  the  private  confession  of 
an  individual,  but  the  public  and  joint  confession  of  the  Church.  —  John 


John  Wiga7id.  277 

He  that  believeth  in  Him  shall  not  be  put  to  shame.  .  .  .  And 
we  must  judge  concerning  predestination  according  to  the  Gos- 
pel, which  contains  the  universal  promise,  and  according  to  the 
causes  of  predestination,  which  are  God's  mercy  and  grace.  For 
as  often  as  Paul  speaks  of  election  unto  salvation,  he  leads  our 
thoughts  to  the  will  revealed  in  the  Gospel.  .  .  .  When  John  in 
Rev.  20  mentions  the  Book  of  Life,  he  speaks  not  of  a  secret 
will  of  God,  but  of  that  will  which  is  revealed  in  the  Word  of 
God,  that  He  would  save  all  sinners,  and  damn  all  unbelievers.  .  . 
Paul  desires  that  we  firmly  trust  it  to  be  impossible  for  God  to 
mean  anything  different  from  what  is  revealed  in  the  Word, 
namely  that  He  will  certainly  save  all  believers,  and  all  who  per- 
severe in  faith;  nor  are  we  to  dream  for  ourselves  a  catalogue 
of  the  saved  differing  from  those  who  truly  believe  in  Christ.  .  .  . 
The  Gospel  is  simply  the  revelation  of  the  decree  of  God:  1) 
Whom  He  has  ordained  unto  eternal  life,  namely  all  men ;  2) 
From  what  causes,  namely  on  account  of  Christ's  merit  and 
from  grace;  3)  How,  namely  if  they  believe  and  persevere  in 
faith.  He  has  revealed  to  us  the  mystery  of  His  will."  (Synt. 
p.  H,  639.) 

'The  fact,  that  God  graciously  receives  some,  and  rejects 
others,  belongs  to  this  general  proposition:  God  will  save  all 
believers,  and  will  damn  all  non-believers.  This  is  the  one  (una), 
constant,  immovable,  and  estabUshed  judgment  of  God"  (Solu- 
tiones  bei  Schluesselburg  6,  212).  "It  is  God's  decree,  that  He 
will  bestow  the  gifts  obtained  by  Christ  upon  all  who  believe  in 
Christ,  but  not  upon  those  who  have  no  faith,  John  3.  In  this 
revealed  will  of  God  we  must  of  necessity  seek  rest"  (p.  228). 

It  is  especially  important  that  Wigand  takes  as  the  first 
''cause"  of  predestination  prasscientiam  (foreknowledge),  and  as 
proof  for  this:  Quoniam  quos  prgescivit,  eosdem  et  praefinivit 
(Whom  He  did  foreknow  them  He  did  predestinate). 


Wigand,  born  1523;  studied  at  Wittenberg  in  1540,  "where  he  formed  the 
acquaintance  of  Luther,  Melanchthon,  etc."  (Joecher)  and  was  made 
Magister  in  1545.  In  1553  he  was  Superintendent  at  Magdeburg;  m  1560 
professor  at  Jena;  in  1562  Superintendent  at  Wismar;  in  1577  Bishop  in 
Samland,  where  he  signed  the  F.  C.  and  died  in  1587.  He  wrote  a  mass 
of  polemical  works,  among  them  one  entitled:  "Whether  the  new  Wit- 
tenbergers  (i.  e.  the  Crypto-Calvinists)  have  always  hitherto  taught  in 
agreement  with  the  fathers. 


278  Intuitu  Fidei. 

MATTHEW  VOGEL. 

Matthew  Vogel:*  "Although  many,  even  more  men  than 
are  saved,  perish,  yet  the  decision  of  God  to  save  all  men  in  Christy 
is  not  thereby  altered,  much  less  invalidated.  P"or  this  decision 
is  confined  and  limited  to  all  believers  in  Christ"  (Thes.  p.  593). 
"Since  all  the  called  do  not  believe  the  Gospel,  but  remain  unbe- 
lieving, more  men  are  damned  through  their  unbelief  than  are 
saved  by  believing  in  Christ;  the  latter  are  by  far  the  smaller 
number  compared  with  the  godless  and  hardened  multitude. 
Yet  the  universality  of  the  evangelical  promises  does  not  militate 
against  the  particularity  of  election  or  against  the  smiall  number 
of  true  believers  and  elect  of  God.  For  as  God's  decision  re- 
mains unaltered,  to  save  all  believers,  so  also  the  decision  of  God 
remains  firm,  to  damn  all  those  who  do  not  believe  in  Christ" 
(p.  594). 


Q.  MYLIUS. 


G.  Mylius  (see  note  above)  writes:  "As  foreknowledge  is 
not  the  cause  of  foreseen  faith,  so  also,  and  much  less,  foreseen 
faith  is  not  the  cause  of  election,  in  the  sense  as  though  men 
are  or  were  elected  on  account  of  foreseen  faith.  And  yet,  al- 
though no  one  is  elected  on  account  of  faith,  not  even  on  account 
of  foreseen  faith,  just  as  little  as  any  one  is  justified  on  account 
of  faith,  it  must  still  be  held  fast  that,  as  believers  are  justified 
through  faith,  so  that  somehow  faith  must  be  added  to  the  order 
of  causes  in  justification,  faith  also,  and  that  foreseen  faith,  al- 
though excluded  from  the  number  of  efficient,  moving,  meritor- 
ious, or  similar  causes,  dare  not  be  excluded  in  the  capacity  of 
cause  altogether,  especially  not  in  the  capacity  of  an  established 
condition  (conditionis  ordinatse)."     (Apolog.  3,  4,  th.  24.) 

"If  only  this  simple  and  general  rule  receives  enough  atten- 

*  Born  1519  in  Nuernberg;  studied  1534  at  Wittenberg;  was  made 
Magister  there  in  1542,  and  "after  receiving  praise  on  examination  by- 
Luther,  Melanchthon,  and  Pomerano  (Bugenhagen)"  (Joecher)  pastor  at 
Lauffen  near  Nuernberg.  On  account  of  the  Interim  he  went  to  Prussia, 
where  he  was  made  professor  in  1557  at  Koenigsberg.  In  1569  he  was 
Superintendent  in  Wuertemberg,  and  as  such  signed  the  F.  C.  He  worked 
more  than  40  years  on  his  main  work,  the  Thesaurus  Theologicus.  He 
had  a  clear  premonition  of  his  death,  set  his  house  in  order,  and  died 
December  3,  1591,  in  the  73rd  year  of  his  age. 


G.  Mylhis.  279 

tion,  that  the  causes  of  election  are  the  same  as  those  of  justi- 
fication, this  whole  matter  will  become  so  clear  that  it  will  appear 
exceedingly  unworthy  for  theologians  to  continue  to  dispute 
among  themselves  about  it."     (Apolog.  3,  4,  27.) 

"You  wish  to  know  the  essential  part  of  the  matter?  It  is 
God  who  from  pure  mercy,  in  Christ  the  Savior,  chose  and  pre- 
destinated to  eternal  salvation  those  who  believe  and  persevere 
in  faith.  You  desire  to  know  what  is  of  secondary  importance? 
This  election  took  place  in  eternity,  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world"  (th.  29).  "Since  the  Scriptures  themselves  emphasize 
foresight,  Rom.  8;  1  Peter  1,  they  show  us  that  this  circumstance 
must  also  be  considered"  (th.  30).  The  limited  number  of  the 
elect  depends  on  the  event  of  faith.  For  that  only  so  many  and 
no  more  are  chosen  is  not  because  God  did  not  wish  to  have 
more,  but  because  only  so  many  and  no  more  believe  in  the  Son; 
as  Christ  declares :  He  that  believeth  not  is  already  judged.  And: 
As  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  He  gave  the  power  to  become 
children  of  God.  This  limitation  of  the  number,  however,  is 
certain  because  of  the  divine  foreknowledge.  For  God  sees  in 
advance,  yea  sees  and  knows  from  eternity  who  will  believe." 
(3,  7,  5.*) 

On  Rom.  9,  18:    "He  hath  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have 


*  But  here  too  Missouri  is  not  at  a  loss.  At  one  time  we  are  told,  the 
cause  of  reprobation  or  non-election  is  clearly  revealed:  God  foresaw 
that  the  non-elect  would  despise  and  reject  His  grace  in  time,  hence  their 
unbelief  is  the  cause  of  their  non-election.  Then  we  are  told,  this  pre- 
cisely is  the  mystery  of  predestination,  that  in  the  case  of  so  many  millions 
whom  God  earnestly  desires  to  save.  He  does  not  remove  this  resistance 
"which  He  could  remove  just  as  easily  as  in  the  case  of  the  elect"  —  and 
this  evidently  declares  that  the  cause  of  particularity  belongs  to  the  un- 
revealed  will  of  God.  Furthermore:  at  one  time  Missouri  tells  us,  in  the 
act  of  election,  when  those  who  were  to  receive  salvation  were  finally  sepa- 
rated from  those  who  were  not  to  receive  it,  God  never  regarded  faith, 
but  followed  only  His  libitum  (pleasure)  or  an  "unknown  rule"  in  choos- 
ing from  among  the  whole  mass  of  unbelieving  sinners  certain  persons  and 
ordaining  them  to  salvation.  Again  Missouri  tells  us,  in  the  act  of  elec- 
tion God  regarded  faith  to  such  an  extent  that  for  this  very  reason,  since 
He  did  not  foresee  faith  in  so  many  of  the  called,  He  could  not  ordain  them 
to  salvation,  although  He  most  earnestly  desired  to  do  so.  And  then  we 
are  to  believe  that  it  is  one  and  the  same  gracious  will  which  ordains  some 
to  salvation  without  regarding  faith,  and  refuses  to  ordain  others  to  sal- 
vation because  it  does  strictly  regard  faith  and  fails  to  find  it.  A  fine 
theology,  surely! 


280  Intuitu  Fidei. 

mercy,"  Mylius  writes:  "Who  they  are  on  whom  God  will  have 
mercy  is  not  to  be  explored  by  reasonings  of  human  wisdom,  nor 
to  be  estimated  in  opinions  based  on  outward  appearances,  and 
least  of  all  to  be  sought  in  the  secret  depths  of  the  divine  will;  it 
must  be  learned  from  the  Archives  of  the  Word  which  God  has 
spoken.  This  Word,  however,  directs  us  to  Christ,  in  whom  the 
richest  abundance  of  divine  grace  and  goodness  are  found;  and 
these  riches  are  offered  to  all  that  they  may  be  embraced  by  true 
faith  in  the  Mediator  Christ.  But  since  faith  comes  by  hearing 
('preaching')  and  is  kindled  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
it  follows  that  the  mercy  of  God  is  ready  for  the  diligent  hearers 
of  the  Word  of  God.  .  .  .  We  must  note  that  the  apostle  does  not 
say  election  is  of  God  'willing,'  but  of  God  'having  mercy.'  This 
is  significant.  If  he  had  said,  election  is  of  God  'willing,'  it 
might  have  appeared  as  if  election  were  absolute.  Then  we  would 
also  have  to  teach  a  particular  mercy  of  God.*  For  if  some  were 
to  be  lost  because  they  were  not  chosen  of  God,  one  might  think 
that  God  did  not  want  to  have  mercy  upon  them.  But  now  Paul 
does  not  say  simply  election  is  'of  God  willing,'  but  of  God  hav- 
ing mercy.  Hence  election  is  qualified,  and  qualified  in  this  way, 
as  the  apostle  shows  Eph.  1,  4:  'God  has  chosen  us  in  Christ 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world.'  This  qualification  which 
implies  the  mercy  of  God  is  not  particular,  but  universal  (for 
the  grace  of  Christ  is  offered  to  all,  and  it  is  said  of  Him  that  He 
was  given  for  the  sins  of  all  the  world).  But  it  does  not  follow 
that  what  is  thus  qualified  (election)  must  now  be  likewise  uni- 
versal, and  not  particular"  (limited  to  a  few).  "Election  is  notf 
an  unchangeable  and  unconditional  decree  of  God  to  save  only 
a  certain  number  and  only  certain  individuals;  but  it  is  God's 
fatherly  counsel  and  purpose  to  save  all  those  who  believe  in 


*  As  Missouri  and  Calvin  do  in  fact,  declaring  that  God  asserts  this 
as  a  right  over  against  the  fallen  human  race,  and  acts  accordingly,  to 
have  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  without  "inquiring  whether  we 
have  obeyed  or  not",  simply  because  He  so  wills!  Evidently  this  is  an 
unconditional,  particular  will  of  mercy,  a  limited  absolute  will  of  grace, 
and  Missouri  adorns  it  with  the  beautiful  word  "predestination." 

t  This  little  word  "not"  makes  the  difference  between  Mylius  and 
Missouri.  Mylius  has  it  in  the  first  part  of  his  sentence,  where  Missouri 
has  no  use  for  it,  but  prefers  to  put  it  into  the  second  part:  "Election  is 
not  the  fatherly  counsel  and  purpose  to  save  all  those  who  believe  in 
Christ."  Or  do  such  trifles  (!  ?)  produce  merely  a  different  shading  in 
the  style  of  doctrine? 


G.  My  litis.  281 

Christ.  It  is  established,  therefore,  that  God  would  have  not 
merely  a  few,  but  all  tO'  be  saved,  yet  only  in  Christ,  so  that  if 
some  are  lost,  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  divine  will  (as  though  they 
were  unconditionally  excluded  from  salvation),  but  entirely  their 
own  fault.  Still  this  remains  unchanged,  only  those  are  called 
the  elect  who  receive  salvation,  not  as  though  they  alone  had 
been  objects  of  God's  mercy,  but  because  the  rest  did  not  accom- 
modate themselves  to  the  counsel  and  qualification  of  election 
(quia  electionis  consilio  et  determinationi  caeteri  sese  non  attem- 
peraverint*) 

In  1606  the  Reformed  of  the  Palatinate  issued  a  "Hearty 
Admonition  from  the  Church  of  the  Palatinate  to  the  Other  Evan- 
gelical Churches  of  Germany."  In  this  they  attempted  to  adorn 
the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  predestination  with  the  most  beau- 
tiful coloring,  as  though  its  sole  object  were  to  ascribe  every- 
thing only  to  the  grace  of  God.  Since  the  Lutherans  meant  to 
do  the  same  thing  in  their  doctrine,  the  controversy  on  this  sub- 
ject, they  supposed,  might  be  "closed  and  ended."  In  1607  My- 
lius  pubHshed  a  small  writing:  "The  Brotherhood  of  Evangel- 
ical Churches,"  and  in  this  treats  briefly  of  the  difiference  regard- 
ing predestination.  Among  other  things  he  writes:  "If  you  of 
the  Palatinate  desire  to  know  how  both  parties  may  attain  unity 
and  peace,  then  state  the  matter  as  follows :  'Whom  He  did  pre- 
destinate, them  He  also  called;  whom  He  called,  them  He  also 
justified;  whom  He  justified,  them  He  also  glorified,'  so  writes 
Paul,  Rom.  8.  Here  one  thing  always  depends  on  the  other, 
and  one  is  linked  into  the  other,  in  such  order  that  one  is  always 
regulated  according  to  the  other.  Now  no  one  is  justified  with- 
out faith;  by  our  present  faith  righteousness  is  now  embraced. 
And  through  our  faith  we  reach  eternal  glory,  but  only  when 
this  faith  perseveres  to  the  end.  Hence  predestination  also  can- 
not but  depend  upon  faith,  which  indeed  is  found  in  the  elect  in 


*  Well,  now  —  if  one  were  to  take  the  standpoint  of  Missouri  —  his 
hairs  would  surely  stand  on  end  at  sight  of  this  coarse  synergism  on  the 
part  of  a  theologian  of  the  F.  C.  like  Mylius!  As  though  a  person  could 
really  "accommodate  himself  to  the  counsel  and  qualification  of  election", 
so  that  he  too  would  have  been  chosen,  and  thus  would  have  decided  and 
caused  his  eternal  election  by  his  "accommodating  himself",  by  his  adapt- 
ing himself!  Perhaps  Mylius  imagined  that  this  was  the  case  even  with 
the  elect,  and  that  in  this  sense  "our  gracious  election  is  promised  us  in 
.mere  words  and  sealed  in  the  sacraments",  as  the  F.  C.  declares!  ! 


282  Intuitu  Fidei. 

time,  yet  God  must  have  foreseen  it  in  eternity,  and  must  have 
resolved  to  bestow  it.  But  that  you  of  the  Palatinate  have  hith- 
erto maintained  a  decree  in  predestination  which  depends  on  no 
order  of  faith,  but  solely  on  the  mere  pleasure  of  God,  is  folly, 
and  you  must  henceforth  abandon  it,  and  rid  yourselves  of  the 
idle  notion"  (p.  95).     Plat  applicatio! 


STEPHEN  QERLACH. 

Stephen  Gerlach,*  in  a  dissertation  written  before  the  con- 
troversy with  Huber  began,  and  directed  against  the  Calvinists, 
set  forth  at  full  length  the  doctrine,  that  election  took  place  "in 
Christ,"  as  well  as  "through  faith"  ("not  without  regard  to  faith"). 
In  1598  and  1599  Gerlach  again  treated  this  doctrine  in  ?^  longer 
dissertations  "directed  against  Huberianism"  (Vol.  Disp.  p.  656- 
889).  From  these  we  quote  the  following  expositions  of  the  doc- 
trine of  election  through  faith,  which  Missouri,  of  course,  will 
again  deride  as  "rationalizing." 

"As  election  unto  life  did  not  take  place  without  Christ,  the 
Mediator  and  Reconciler,  so  also  it  did  not  take  place  without 
the  consideration  of  faith  in  Him,  for  through  Him  alone  man 
in  his  sin  and  damning  guilt  could  be  ordained  and  predestinated 
unto  salvation  without  infringing  upon  the  divine  righteousness. 
And  as  God  does  not  save  man  without  faith,  so  also  He  did  not 
deem  that  He  would  save  him,  or  elect  him  unto  life,  without 
faith.  This  would  have  been  contradictory  to  the  divine  right- 
eousness. Therefore  Paul  writes,  2  Thess.  2,  13:  'God  hath 
from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation  in  sanctification  of  the 

*  Born  1546;  on  his  mother's  side  a  relative  of  John  Brenz,  under 
whose  guardianship  he  attended  the  schools  at  Stuttgart  when  a  boy;  since 
1563  he  studied  at  Tuebingen;  in  1567  was  made  Dr.  of  Philosophy;  stud- 
ied theology  for  six  years  after  this  under  Heerbrand,  Schnepf,  Andreae, 
and  Brenz;  went  in  1573  to  Constantinople  with  the  imperial  legate  David 
Ungnad  von  Sonneneck  as  the  preacher  of  the  embassy,  attended  the  pro- 
ceedings between  the  Wuertembergers  and  the  Greek  Patriarchs,  which 
brought  about  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  of 
the  Compendium  of  Heerbrand;  since  1578  professor  at  Tuebingen;  in 
1579  made  Dr.  of  Theology  on  the  same  day  with  G.  Mylius;  died  1612. 
He  signed  the  F.  C.  in  1578  when  he  began  teaching  theology.  As  stated 
in  the  "Introductory  Remarks"  above,  a  dissertation  by  Gerlach  first 
caused  Huber  to  begin  his  foolish  contention  against  the  particular  election 
of  believers. 


Stephen  Gerlach.  283 

spirit  and  in  belief  of  the  truth.'  In  this  article  the  following- 
propositions  of  Huber  are  rejected  as  contradicting  the  Word  of 
God  and  the  Book  of  Concord:  1)  That  'God  in  eternity  chose 
and  ordained  all  men  in  Christ  unto  salvation,  prior  and  without 
any  regard  to  faith';  2)  That  'beside  this  universal  election  there 
is  no  other  on  the  part  of  God.'  Here  we  meet  a  double  error 
of  Huber,  which  dare  not  be  tolerated  in  the  Church:  1)  He 
invents  a  universal  election  contradicting  directly  according  to 
his  own  admission,  the  particular  election  through  which  alone 
God  determined  to  choose  and  save  believers.  Such  a  universal 
election  (destroying  particular  election  as  taught  in  the  Word 
of  God  and  set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Concord)  is  found  nowhere 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  must  therefore  be  rejected  by  the 
orthodox  and  prohibited  in  our  schools.  2)  The  second  error* 
is  that  he  excludes  regard  to  faith  and  the  consideration  of  faith 
from  the  act  of  election  itself,  and  declares,  this  election  is  con- 
cluded through  the  mercy  of  God  and  merit  of  Christ  alone.  For 
he  asserts,  God  chose  all  men  unto  life  in  Christ,  predestinated 
them  unto  sonship,  and  declared  salvation  to  be  theirs,  without 
taking  regard  to  faith.  But  this  is  false  and  godless,  because  it 
contradicts  the  will  and  righteousness  of  God  to  teach  that  God 
absolutely  and  unconditionally,  without  regard  to  faith,  simply  for 
the  sake  of  Christ,  ordained  unto  life  man,t  who  is  a  sinner  and 
enemy  of  God  and  a  child  of  wrath  and  damnation."  (P.  679.) 
"As  this  proposition:  'God  predestinated  all  men  unto  son- 
ship  without  regard  to  faith,  i.  e.  that  they  should  become  God's 
children,'  is  false,  since  God  gave  power  only  to  those  who  be- 
lieve to  become  the  children  of  God,  John  1,  12,  so  also  it  can 
never  be  proved  that  God  chose  all  men  in  Christ  unto  life,  or 
which  is  the  same,  that  He  determined  to  give  life  to  all  without 
taking  faith  into  consideration.  Therefore  we  condemn  this 
proposition  of  Huber  as  false  and  absurd  in  theology,  yea  as 

*  Now  open  your  ears,  ye  foes  of  "election  through  faith" !  Note  well 
what  Stephen  Gerlach,  this  faithful  and  zealous  defender  of  the  theology 
and  Church  of  the  F.  C.  states  as  Ruber's  second  error,  which  "dare  not 
be  tolerated  in  the  Church",  and  is  contradictory  both  to  the  Scriptures 
and  to  the  Book  of  Concord.  What  do  you  say?  —  this  second  error  is  a 
photograph  of  your  own  doctrine  and  "position",  condemned  by  Gerlach!  ! 

t  This  means  "  any  man  ",  whether  with  Huber  we  refer  it  to  all,  or 
with  Missouri  and  Calvin  only  to  a  few.  For  it  is  not  the  extent,  but  the 
contents  of  this  idea  of  election  which  renders  it  "godless"  according  to 
Gerlach. 


284  Intuitu  Fidei. 

blasphemous  in  contradicting  God's  righteousness;  and  together 
with  it  the  following  sentences:  1)  That  faith,  or  regard  to  faith 
(for  of  this  we  are  speaking)  does  not  belong  to  the  act  of  election 
itself,  but  to  its  application,  use,  efifect  and  purpose;  2)  That 
the  act  of  eternal  election  is  completed  through  God's  mercy  and 
Christ's  merit"  (absolvatur,  really  meaning  to  bring  to  an  end, 
to  finish  or  complete),  "and  does  not  for  its  completion  require 
faith;  3)  That  it  is  Pelagian  to  teach  a  consideration  of  faith  as 
required  in  the  act  of  election.*  These  three  assertions  Huber 
makes  in  common  with  the  Calvinists,  and  by  them  defends  the 
godless  doctrine  of  the  Calvinists,  whose  strong  enemy  he  claims 
to  be,  and  seeks  to  win  other  excellent  men  in  the  Church,  against 
their  own  real  conviction,  for  the  Calvinists. f 

Moreover,  election  unto  life  was  an  act  of  God  taking  in  at 
one  sweep  both  the  object  to  be  attained  and  the  means  for  its 
attainment;  it  did  not  ordain  the  object  without  the  means  (among 
which  is  also  faith),  or  decree  salvation  to  any  one  without  con- 
sidering faith.  It  was  never  God's  purpose,  counsel,  or  pleasure 
to  save  men  without  faith  in  Christ;  He  resolved  to  grant  salva- 
tion to  men  through  faith.  Faith  belongs  to  this  complete  act, 
so  that  no  one  was  ordained  unto  life  without  the  consideration 
of  faith.     And  as  in  the  work  of  justification  and  glorification 

*  Huber  taught  that  .God  chose  and  ordained  to  salvation,  and  hence 
also  unto  faith  ,all  men  simply  on  account  of  His  mercy  and  Christ's  merit 
(excluding  faith  as  a  means  of  appropriation).  Missouri  teaches  exactly 
the  same  thing  in  regard  to  "some  certain  persons"!  A  man  must  be 
utterly  blind  or  hardened  not  to  see  that  Gerlach  here  decidedly  rejects 
what  Missouri  imagines  is  taught  in  the  F.  C,  and  that  vice  versa  Mis- 
souri rejects  what  Gerlach  finds  in  the  F.  C. 

t  Dr  Walther  also  appealed  to  the  fact  that  Huber  accused  even  men 
like  Hunnius  and  Leyser  and  others  of  Calvinism;  and  that  therefore  it 
is  by  no  means  strange  that  Missouri  to-day  is  called  upon  to  suffer  the 
same  slander  as  these  "orthodox  theologians."  But  this  beautiful  appeal 
hides  "an  open  piece  of  deception"!  Huber  indeed  wronged  these  "ortho- 
dox theologians",  whose  services  for  the  Church  and  for  God  were  many, 
when  he  decried  their  doctrine  of  the  particular  election  of  believers  as 
such,  calling  it  Calvinism,  and  placing  it  in  the  same  line  with  the  Calvin- 
istic  alsolute  election  of  sinners  as  such  (a)  unto  salvation  and  (6)  unto 
faith.  What  Missouri  to-day  proclaims  as  the  only  correct  scriptural  and 
confessional  idea  of  election  Huber  himself,  in  its  essential  contents  (only 
not  in  extension),  held  in  common  with  these  very  Calvinists.  Whereas 
our  "orthodox  theologians"  over  against  Huber  as  well  as  the  Calvinists 
at  that  time  rejected  and  opposed  this  at  present  Missourian  idea  of  elec- 
tion most  decidedly. 


Stephen   Gerlach .  285 

nothing  whatever  is  detracted  by  faith  from  the  praise  of  God's 
grace  and  of  Christ's  merit  as  the  efficient  and  meritorious  causes, 
so  also  in  the  work  of  election  when  God  decided  and  resolved 
to  justify  and  save  sinners  through  faith.  And  as  man  is  not 
justified  and  saved  on  account  of  faith,  but  through  faith,  so  also 
we  are  chosen,  ordained,  and  predestinated  unto  life  not  on 
account  of  faith,  but  only  on  account  of  Christ,  yet  not  without 
the  consideration  of  faith,  without  which  the  election  and  pre- 
destination of  sinful  men  unto  life  did  not  take  place.  For  elec- 
tion was  not  absolute,  but  according  to  an  order  and  limited  by 
faith.  Huber,  however,  thinking  that  the  act  of  election  in  itself 
took  place  and  was  finished,  not  indeed  without  Christ,  yet  with- 
out the  qualification  of  faith,  sets  up  an  absolute  election  in  Christ, 
by  which  Christ  is  said  to  have  predestinated  all  men  unto  life 
without  considering  faith.*  Some,  accordingly,  have  drawn  the 
conclusion  from  this,  that  as  a  few,  such  as  are  included  in  the 
act,  are  necessarily  saved  according  to  the  Calvinistic  idea  of 
election,  so  according  to  Huber's  election  all  men  would  neces- 
sarily have  to  be  saved.  For  whatever  God  wills  to  take  place 
without  any  limitation  in  Christ  or  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  and 
without  regard  to  faith,  must  necessarily  take  place,  according  to 
the  passage.  Is.  14,  27:  The  Lord  of  hosts  hath  purposed,  and 
who  shall  disannul  it?'  But  the  orthodox  Church  knows  noth- 
ing of  this  election  of  Huber,  the  act  of  which  is  completed  through 
God's  mercy  and  Christ's  merit,  without  the  consideration  of 
faith,  and  by  which  the  election  of  believers  as  taught  in  God's 
Word  and  in  the  Book  of  Concord  is  subverted."     (P.   683.t) 


*  Here  again  the  similarity  between  the  Missourian  idea  of  election 
and  that  of  Huber  appears  clearly;  there  is  only  the  difference  of  extent, 
and  in  this  respect  Huber's  error  is  more  bearable  than  that  of  Missouri. 
For  a  particular  election  unto  salvation  without  regard  to  faith  grounded 
on  Christ's  merit,  in  reality  makes  Christ  Himself  and  His  merit  particular. 

t  From  the  standpoint  of  Missouri  this  beats  everything.  Did  Stephen 
Gerlach  dare  to  write  this  out  into  the  world,  in  the  midst  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  which  had  adopted  the  F.  C.  only  a  few  years  before?  !  Can  a 
man  who  subscribed  the  F.  C.  on  its  appearance  write  in  such  wise?  ! 
Dare  he  publicly  declare:  "The  orthodox  Church  knows  nothing  of  an 
election  the  act  of  which  is  complete  through  God's  mercy  and  Christ's 
merit,  without  the  consideration  of  faith"?  !  And  people  like  Jacob  Heer- 
brand  and  Luke  Osiander  stand  by  in  Stuttgart  and  Tuebingen,  and  do 
not  at  once  place  him  under  discipline  for  this  public  "deviation  from  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Symbol"?  And  thousands  of  the  original  signers  of 
the  F.  C.  still  live  in  all  the  land  of  Germany,  and  not  one  rises  to  repel 


286  hihdtic  Fidei. 

"As  the  grace  of  God  and  salvation  is  bestowed  upon  no 
one  in  time  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  except  upon  believers,  of  whom 
alone  Paul  declares,  Rom.  6,  that  they  are  not  under  the  Law, 
but  under  grace,  so  also  in  eternity,  according  to  the  purpose 
and  pleasure  of  the  subsequent  will,  grace  was  given  or  predesti- 
nated to  no  one  except  those  who  believe  and  obey  the  Word  of 
grace.  And  as  these  alone,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  are 
in  fact  and  in  deed  received  of  God  unto  grace  (for  upon  those 
who  do  not  believe  the  wrath  of  God  abides,  John  3),  freed  from 
their  sins,  justified  or  regarded  as  just  through  faith,  and  saved, 
so  also  in  God's  eternal  counsel  His  grace  was  decreed  as  be- 
longing unto  these  believers  alone.  God's  grace  indeed  dawned 
like  the  morning  sun  upon  all  men  through  the  appearance  of 
the  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  and  was  revealed  to  all.  Tit.  2;  but 
by  faith  alone  we  have  access  to  this  grace,  Rom.  5.  God  wants 
to  save  all  men  through  the  regular  means,  to  which  belong 
knowledge  of  the  truth  and  faith;  but  He  does  not  bestow  sal- 
vation upon  all  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  because  all  do  not  believe 
in  Christ.  For  He  will  save  those  only  who  beUeve,  1  Cor.  1, 
and  give  to  them  only  eternal  life,  John  6,  and  leave  those  who 
do  not  believe  unto  wrath  and  damnation,  John  3"  (p.  726). 

Gerlach  cites  this  point  as  one  of  Huber's  perversions  of  the 
orthodox  doctrine :  "That  we,  according  to  God's  ordering  (which 
we  are  said  to  imagine),  place  election  after  faith,  and  thus  invent 
a  faith  which  has  no  Word,  no  foundation,  no  promise  to  rest 
upon."  Gerlach  replies:  "Our  doctrine  is  this:  It  is  God's  eter- 
nal counsel,  purpose,  and  decree  to  save  men  through  faith  in 
Christ.  Those  now  who  believe  the  Word  of  the  Gospel  are 
included  in  His  grace,  and  in  the  purpose  and  decree  of  eternal 
election.  And  God  from  eternity  knew  who  would  believe  the 
Word  of  truth,  obey  the  divine  decree,  and  be  obedient  children. 
These  from  eternity  He  predestinated  that  they  should  be  in  the 
likeness  of  His  Son,  i.  e.  partakers  of  His  sufifering  and  of  His 
glory"  (p.  785*). 

this  Pelagianizing,  yea  rationalizing  definition  of  election?  O  wretched 
Lutheran  Church!  From  the  standpoint  of  Missouri,  all  these  hosts  of 
subscribers  to  thy  renowned  Formula  of  Concord  —  what  colossal  asses 
and  cowards  they  must  have  been!     "Let  there  be  light"! 

*  It  appears  that  Gerlach  too,  viewed  from  Missouri's  position,  "does 
not  go  deep"  —  as  Dr.  Walther  once  said  significantly  of  Leyser's  ser- 
mons.    Years  ago  the  Missouri  Synod  itself  "did  not  go  deep"  in  this  doc- 


Stephen  Gerlach.  287 

In  his  Commentary  on  Ephesians,  which  is  quoted  in  the 
Acta  Huberiana  as  having  been  written  before  the  outbreak  of 
the  Huber  controversy,  Gerlach  writes  on  Eph.  1:  "God  has 
estabhshed  the  ofihce  of  the  Word,  that  all  the  world  and  all 
creatures  under  heaven  should  know  the  Gospel  regarding  His 
good  pleasure  to  save  all  men  through  His  beloved  Son,  whom 
they  should  hear  and  accept  by  faith.  And  it  is  God's  will  that 
all  may  obey  this  Word  and  believe  it.  He  also  commanded  to 
baptize  all  nations,  that  the  will  and  grace  of  God  might  be  sealed 
unto  them,  according  to  which  all  men  are  to  be  saved  through 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth  and  faith  in  Christ.  Since  God,  how- 
ever, saw  that  not  all  would  obey  His  Word,  He  predestinated 
those  who  would  believe  in  Christ  the  Savior  in  an  especial  man- 
ner unto  salvation,  and  the  disobedient  unto  damnation.  And 
this  eternal  will  of  His  He  commanded  to  reveal  and  preach  unto 
all  creatures,  Mark  IG,  saying:  'He  that  beheveth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damnejd.' 
This  was  the  special  decree  of  predestination,*  from  the  descrip- 
tion of  which  the  consideration  of  faith  and  regard  to  it  can  in 
no  way  be  excluded.  For  as  election  did  not  take  place  without 
regard  to  Christ,  so  also  it  did  not  take  place  without  the  consid- 
eration of  faith,  by  which  we  embrace  Christ  and  the  grace  of 
election,  and  without  which  Christ,  in  whom  is  the  salvation  of 
all  men,  would  be  of  no  benefit  to  us." 


trine,  but  halted  cautiously  where  it  had  a  solid  foundation  in  the  Script- 
ures and  a  clear  Word  of  God  to  stand  on.  Later  on  a  beginning  was 
made  in  going  somewhat  deeper,  and  some  risky  maneuvers  were  even  at- 
tempted in  this  line,  yet  Huelsemann's  definition  was  still  held  fast  as  be- 
ing orthodox:  "God  chose  those  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would 
not  wilfully  reject  the  grace  of  His  call  etc."  Now,  to  be  sure,  Missouri 
has  gone  much  deeper,  and  continues  to  go  briskly  forward  into  the  bot- 
tomless depths  of  the  Calvinistic  absolute  swamp  —  I  meant  to  say:  ab- 
solute decree.  And  it  is  not  every  man  that  has  the  ability  of  pulling  him- 
self out  again  by  his  own  hair!  And  to  have  others  instruct  them?  —  will 
never  do  at  all. 

*  But  according  to  Missouri  this  is  not  at  all  the  decree  of  predestina- 
tion, but  only  a  wretched  "self-evident  conclusion"  from  the  universal 
Gospel  as  it  lies  clearly  revealed  before  us. 


288  Intuitu  Fidei. 

DANIEL  ARCULARIUS. 

Daniel  Arcularius:*  "The  question  is  asked,  whether  the 
decree  of  election  was  formed  with  the  condition  of  faith,  that  is 
for  the  sake  of  foreseen  faith.  —  Answer:  Since  the  decree  of 
election  is  not  absolute,  but  qualified  in  a  certain  manner,  and  by 
a  certain  condition,  no  man  of  understanding-  will  deny  that  the 
condition  of  faith  is  included  in  this  decree.  Eph.  1,  4.  5;  2  Thess. 
2,  13.  Nevertheless,  we  do  not  say  that  we  are  chosen  for  the 
sake  of  foreseen  faith,  but  for  the  sake  of  Christ  who  is  embraced 
by  faith;  just  as  we  do  not  say  that  we  are  justified  for  the 
sake  of  faith,  but  for  the  sake  of  Christ  who  is  embraced  by  faith; 
or  (which  amounts  to  the  same  thing)  through  faith  in  Christ. 
We  do  not  make  the  decree  of  election  dependent  on  faith  as  a 
cause  lying-  in  the  free  will  of  man  and  moving  the  will  of  God 
in  election.  On  the  contrary,  because  it  pleased  God  to  elect 
us  only  in  Christ,  and  since  Christ  and  faith  here  stand  in  mutual 
relation  to  each  other,  Christ  as  well  as  faith  is  included  in  the 
decree  of  election.  Faith  indeed  is  called  in  one  respect  the 
cause  of  election,  and  in  another  the  result  of  election:  a  cause 
inasmuch  as  by  it  we  are  implanted  into  Christ,  in  whom  we 
are  chosen;  a  result,  however,  in  regard  to  God,  who  in  part 
elects  and  defines  the  decree  of  election  by  the  condition  of  faith, 
and  in  part  afterward  carries  out  His  decree.  For  God  did  not 
in  electing  form  the  decree  so  that  it  differs  from  the  one  He  after- 
wards carries  out.  Now  He  carries  it  out  in  part  by  calling-, 
in  part  by  justifying,  in  part  by  glorifying  the  elect,  Rom.  8,  30; 
and  all  this  not  without  Christ  as  offered  in  the  Word  and  Sacra- 
ment and  accepted  on  our  part  by  faith.  All  these  elements  — • 
Christ,  the  work  of  the  Word,  faith  —  God  took  into  considera- 
tion when  He  chose  men  (horum  omnium  jam  tum  in  eligendis 
hominibus  Deus  habuit  rationem).  And  how  could  God,  without 
infringing  upon  His  righteousness,  have  elected  men  stained  with 
sin,  absolutely  without  regard  to  the  satisfaction  to  be  rendered 
by  His  Son?  Surely,  just  as  little  as  He  could  justify  us  without 
this  satisfaction.  Furthermore,  when  we  say  that  God  elected 
those  of  whom  He  foreknew  that  they  would  believe  in  Christ, 

*  Already  in  1576  he  stood  beside  yEg.  Hunnius,  "the  most  warlike  of 
all  theologians  in  Hessia"  (Heppe),  as  professor  at  Marburg  and  sub- 
scribed the  F.  C,  together  with  Hunnius  on  the  14th  of  September,  1577. 
He  died  in  1596.     The  above  testimony  occurs  in  Disp.  Marburg,  H,  252. 


Daniel  Arcularius .  289 

we  say  this  with  the  Scriptures  in  respect  to  ourselves,  since  the 
Scriptures  connect  God's  foreknowledge  (prognosis)  with  elec- 
tion,* Rom.  8,  29;  1  Peter  1,  1.  2.  Otherwise  when  we  speak 
in  respect  to  God,  who  sees  everything  to  come  as  already  pres- 
ent, we  more  properly  say  that  those  are  elected  whom  God 
knows  as  believing  in  Christ,  whom  He  contemplates  with  pleas- 
ure, in  His  Son,  as  now  already  by  faith  implanted  in  Him." 

"Predestination  is  not  a  certain  secret  decree,  established  in 
an  unconditional  and  mere  will  of  God,  in  which  God,  without 
considering  any  other  causes  or  means,  predestinated  some  unto 
life  and  others  unto  death,  and  determined  to  give  to  the  former 
faith,  and  to  leave  the  latter  or  even  to  confirm  them  in  unbelief. 
On  the  contrary,  predestination  is  a  decree  whicli  is  revealed 
in  the  Gospel,  and  includes  both  Christ  and  the  promise  of  the 
Gospel  and  faith.  Wherefore  the  apostle  declares  that  we  are 
chosen  of  God  in  Christ,  Eph.  1.  He  is  the  Book  of  Life  in 
which  the  elect  are  written,  Ps.  69;  Ex.  22.  And  in  Rom.  8  the 
apostle  writes:  'Whom  He  did  predestinate,  them  He  also  called; 
whom  He  did  call,  them  He  also  justified;  whom  He  did  justify, 
them  He  also  glorified.'  Therefore  we  must  judge  of  election 
by  the  Gospel,  which  teaches  that  the  cause  of  election,  as  well 
as  of  justification,  is  the  free  mercy  of  God,  promised  in  Christ, 
and  to  be  embraced  on  our  part  by  faith.  And  although  this 
faith  is  a  gift  of  God,  yet  God  kindles  it  in  us,  and  also  increases 
and  nourishes  it,  through  certain  instruments  and  means,  I  mean 
through  the  office  of  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments.  Hence  it 
is  our  duty  to  follow  the  example  of  the  Gentiles  (Acts  13,  48), 
and  hear  and  learn  and  meditate  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Gos- 
pel, and  not  to  cherish  thoughts  of  security  or  of  doubt,  to  say 
nothing  of  rejecting  the  Word  of  God  and  of  persecuting  it  with 
slander,  after  the  manner  of  the  Jews.  For  further  explanation 
of  this  doctrine  see  the  theological  locis  communis  of  Philippus 
(Melanchthonf)." 


*  Conjungit.  Arcularius.  therefore,  does  not  take  Prognosis  to  mean 
the  same  as  election,  nor  the  former  as  constituting  an  act  of  the  will,  but 
only  as  God's  foreknowledge  of  faith. 

t  The  lectures  on  the  Acts,  from  which  this  testimony  is  taken,  were 
delivered  by  Arcularius  in  1581  at  Marburg,  where  for  sixteen  years  he 
labored  by  the  side  of  Hunnius.  Menzer,  his  successor  in  office,  pub- 
lished these  lectures  twenty-five  years  later  for  the  first  time;  later  on 
they  were  also  published  by  Fecht  and  by  Feustking.     Perhaps  some  of 


290  Inhiitii  Fidei. 


JOHN  GEORGE  SIGWART. 

John  George  Sigwart*  writes:  "In  describing  election  we 
say,  it  is  the  eternal  purpose  of  the  divine  wall,  by  which  God  the 
Father,  according  to  His  mercy,  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merit, 

our  readers  will  remember  that  Missouri  also  appeals  to  this  Arcularius, 
because  he  too  declares  that  faith  "flowed  from  the  eternal  predestination 
of  God  as  from  a  fountain"  (cf.  Report  of  the  West.  Dist.  '77,  p.  44).  The 
reason  why  Missouri  does  not  quote  more,  and  why  it  leaves  out  the  en- 
tire brief  exposition  of  this  subject,  our  readers  will  surmise  without  our 
help.  Arcularius  states  explicitly  that  faith  "in  one  respect  is  the  cause  of 
election,  and  in  another  the  result."  In  what  respect  would  Missouri  have 
admitted  that  faith  also  is  a  cause  of  election?  In  so  far  as  the  eternal 
gracious  counsel  of  God  establishes  the  entire  order  of  salvation  and,  in 
conjunction  with  God's  foreknowledge,  culminates  in  the  special  decree 
bestowing  salvation  upon  certain  persons,  predestination  is  indeed  also 
the  fountain  and  cause  of  faith,  because  logically  it  includes  the  entire  in- 
stitution of  means,  and  constitutes  the  eternad  source  of  all  manifestations 
of  grace  in  time.  If  there  were  no  predestination,  not  even  in  the  nar- 
rower and  stricter  sense,  an  irrevocable  decree  bestowing  salvation  on 
certain  persons,  then  there  would  also  be  no  redemption,  no  means  of 
grace,  and  no  faith.  For  if  God  had  not  wanted  to,  or  had  been  unable 
to,  predestinate  certain  men,  according  to  His  foresight,  unto  the  actual 
attainment  of  salvation.  He  would  certainly  also  never  have  redeemed 
men,  to  produce  at  best  only  temporary  believers  who  would  not  be 
saved.  In  this  sense  the  whole  execution  of  the  counsel  of  salvation  in 
time  flows  from  the  special  decree  of  fixed  election  unto  salvation,  as  also 
from  its  intimate  connection  v/ith  the  establishment  of  all  means.  The 
same  counsel  of  love,  which  in  its  paternal  compassion  looks  upon  all 
humanity  without  any  distinction,  constitutes,  from  the  point  of  view  of 
divine  prognosis  (foreknowledge)  predestination;  and  for  this  reason 
scarcely  anything  was  heard  for  a  long  time  in  our  Church  of  the  "counsel 
of  salvation"  (Heilsrath)  and  "order  of  grace"  (Gnadenordnung),  the  ex- 
pressions used  being  predestination  and  election.  That  Acularius  was  no 
Missourian  is  easily  demonstrated  in  other  respects.  He  says  for  instance: 
"God  earnestly  desires  to  give  faith  to  all,  not  with  an  unconditional  will, 
but  with  a  will  qualified  by  this  condition,  that  they  follow  the  order  He 
has  established,  i.  e.  use  aright  the  instruments  of  faith."  "We  do  not  say 
that  any  unbelief  whatever,  or  that  wickedness  which  is  common  to  all 
by  reason  of  our  depraved  nature,  is  the  cause  why  faith  is  not  given  to 
all;  but  the  voluntary,  coarse  wickedness  and  unbelief  brought  on  by 
man's  own  guilt  and  connected  with  stubbornness.  For  it  is  certain  that 
there  are  degrees  of  wickedness  and  of  unbelief  also  in  the  unregenerate." 
*  Was  made  Magister  in  1578  at  Tuebingen;  together  with  Jacob 
Heerbrand,  Luke  Osiander,  etc.,  he  stood  in  the  front  ranks  of  Wuertem- 
berg  theologians;  hence  also  co-author  of  the  Acta  Huberiana.  His  most 
important  work  is  the  Admonitio  directed  against  Farei  Irenicum.  Died 
in  1618,  in  his  64th  year. 


Sigzvart  —  Backineister,  Coler  {and  ChytrcB^is).  291 

predestinated  unto  eternal  life  those  from  among  the  fallen  hu- 
man race  who,  by  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  through  the 
Vvord  and  Sacraments,  believe  in  Christ  the  Mediator.  But  we 
reject  the  Calvinistic  definition  according  to  which  God  is  said  to 
have  chosen  some  absolutely  unto  eternal  life,  without  regard 
either  to  Christ's  merit  or  to  faith.  .  .  .  We  also  reject  the 
other  extreme,  which  in  most  respects  is  directly  oposed  to  Cal- 
vinism and  deviates  too  much  to  the  right;  the  doctrine  which 
makes  no  difference,  teaching  that  God  chose  all  men  altogether 
unto  life  without  regard  to  faith.  In  this  way  an  absolute  elec- 
tion is  taught  like  that  of  the  Calvinists,  with  only  this  difference, 
in  the  one  case  we  have  a  particular  absolute  election,  in  the  other 
a  universal  absolute  election.*  ...  It  is  no  less  an  error, 
when  particular  election  is  rejected,  which  is  based  on  the  sub- 
sequent will,  and  according  to  which  God  is  said  to  have  chosen 
unto  eternal  life  men  not  as  they  are  by  nature,  but  as  believers. 
Such  rejection  would  oppose  the  universal  will  to  this  particular 
election  as  though  contradicting  it;  whereas  the  latter  is  only 
a  subordinate  part  of  the  former."     (Disp.,  p.  194.) 


LUKE  BACKMEISTER  AND  JACOB  COLER  (AND  CHYTR/EUS). 

In  the  year  1G02  the  "Revised  Agenda,  how  Christian  teach- 
ing, the  administration  of  the  Sacraments  .  .  .  are  to  be 
conducted  in  the  Dukedom  of  Mecklenburg,"  was  published.  In 
all  probability  this  was  a  revision  of  the  earlier  work  composed 
by  the  elder  John  Freder.  Not  only  Backmeister  and  Colerf 
aided  in  the  revision,  even  Chytraeus  himself  was  one  of  the  au- 
thors. In  our  copy  of  the  year  1602  we  find  an  old  note  in  writing 
as  follows:     "Anno  1602,  the  17th  of  June,  at  the  diet  at  Stern- 

*  Our  theologians  throughout  call  election  absolute  when  faith  is  ex- 
cluded, even  though  Christ's  merit  remains.  Such  was  Ruber's  doctrine, 
and  Sigwart  as  well  as  others  alwaj^s  call  his  election  absolute. 

t  Luke  Backmeister,  born  1530;  professor  of  theology  at  Rostock 
since  15(32,  by  the  side  of  Chytraeus  who  entered  as  professor  1557;  signed 
the  F.  C.  in  1677.  In  age  Backmeister  and  Chytrseus  were  only  six  months 
apart.  Chyrseus  died  in  1600,  Backmeister  in  1608.  B.  was  for  a  long 
time  Superintendent  of  the  church  at  Rostock.  —  Jacob  Coler,  born  1537; 
since  1564  pastor  at  different  places;  since  1575  professor  at  Frankfurt 
a.  O.;  in  1577  Praepositus  in  Berlin,  where  he  signed  the  F.  C;  since 
1600  Superintendent  of  the  Guestrow  District  in  Mecklenburg,  where  he 
died  in  1612. 


292  Intuitic  Fidei. 

berg,  the  estates  extended  their  thanks  for  the  publication  of  the 
new  Agenda,  and  prayed  that  the  opinion  of  other  theologians 
might  be  obtained,  and  that  the  right  of  nomination  and  of  the 
patronate,  which  belongs  to  the  estates,  might  not  be  infringed 
upon.  Whereupon  His  Grace  declared  that  the  Agenda  had 
been  diligently  revised  by  D.  Chytrseo,  and  no  one's  rights  were 
therein  infringed  upon."  As  all  the  Agendae  of  that  day  so  also 
this  Mecklenburg  Revision  contains  articles  on  disputed  doc- 
trines. Among  these  especially  is  one  written  by.  Chytraeus: 
"Concerning  Eternal  Predestination."  The  first  5-6  pages  read 
as  follows:  "Concerning  divine  predestination,  and  the  eternal 
election  of  the  children  of  God,  and  the  reprobation  of  the 
damned,*  about  which  terrible  and  abominable  controversy  and 
error  has  arisen  in  our  time,  our  preachers  are  to  instruct  our 
dear  subjects  simply  and  honestly  from  the  Word  of  God.  It  is 
indeed  true  and  certain  that  our  merciful,  gracious  God,  as  far  as 
His  paternal  will  is  concerned,  would  exclude  no  man  from  heaven 
and  eternal  life,  but  desires  that  all  men  may  be  saved;  also,  that 
God  gave  His  beloved  Son  into  death  for  the  whole  human  race; 
also,  that  Christ  died  for  sinners,  and  all  men  are  sinners.  Yet 
we  ar-e  not  to  imagine  anything  concerning  God's  essence  or  will 
and  eternal  predestination  with  our  human  reason  and  with  our 
own  thoughts, t  but  must  believe  and  hold  firmly  what  God  has 
revealed  through  His  only  begotten  Son  Jesus  Christ  through 
the  Gospel.     And  this  teaches  us  that  God,  in  pure  goodness  and 


*  Note  the  contrast.  Missouri  claims  that  predestination  has  no  "re- 
verse side",  no  opposite  decree  of  reprobation.  Everybody  sees  that  it 
is  idiotic  to  speak  of  the  selection  of  some  from  among  a  multitude,  and 
to  say  that  this  selection  has  no  non-election,  no  leaving  of  the  rest,  as  its 
reverse  side.  This  very  leaving  of  the  rest  makes  it  a  selection.  The 
above  testimony  shows  clearly  how  the  Mecklenburg  Church  of  the  F.  C, 
with  Chytrsus,  the  author  of  this  article,  at  its  head,  placed  reprobation 
beside  predestination  as  its  necessary  reverse  side.  But  of  course  the 
object  of  both  was  alike,  not  sinners  as  they  are  alike  by  nature.  Predes- 
tination is  the  "eternal  election  of  the  children  of  God",  and  non-election 
is  the  "reprobation  of  the  damned",  or  as  we  read  at  the  end  of  the  article: 
"the  rejection  of  the  godless."  Since  election  is  a  selection,  there  must 
be  a  "separation  of  persons",  so  that  when  the  act  of  election  is  finished 
the  mass  undivided  at  first  becomes  separated  into  elect  and  non-elect. 
And  never  do  the  Scriptures  or  the  Confessions  or  the  confessors  say  that 
the  elect  were  in  the  act  of  election  regarded  simply  and  in  the  same  sense- 
as  "godless"  or  as  without  faith,  like  the  rest  who  are  reprobate. 

t  Apparently  directed  against  Huber. 


Luke  Backvieister  and  Jacob  Coler  {and  Chytnciis).       293 

mercy,  for  the  sake  of  His  Son  Jesus  Christ,  chose  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  from  the  human  race,  an  eternal  church 
or  acceptable  people  to  be  His  children  and  heirs  of  eternal  sal- 
vation, to  the  praise  of  His  glorious  grace,  wherein  He  hath 
made  us  accepted  in  the  Beloved,  Eph.  1.  This  must  first  be 
carefully  considered.* 

"Thereupon,  when  thy  heart  inquireth  whether  thou  also  art 
elected  unto  eternal  salvation,  thou  shalt  abide  firmly  by  this  true 
and  certain  rule,  repeated  and  confirmed  many  times  by  the  Son 
of  God  Himself  in  His  Word,  that  of  a  truth  all  men  are  elected 
as  dear  children  of  God  and  heirs  of  eternal  salvation  who  accept 
with  a  true  heart,  in  true  repentance  and  conversion  to  God,  the 
Gospel  or  promise  of  grace  for  Christ's  sake,  and  believe  firmly 
tliat  they  have  forgiveness  of  sins  without  any  merit  or  worthiness 
of  their  own,  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  and  that  they  are  accepted  of 
God  unto  grace  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal  life,  and  persevere 
in  such  faith  to  the  end.  John  3:  'God  so  loved  the  world  that 
He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.'  Rev.  2:  'Be  thou 
faithful  unto  death,  and  I  will  give  thee  a  crown  of  life.'  Rev. 
14:  'Blessed  are  the  dead  which  die  in  the  Lord  from  hence- 
forth.' Thou  shalt  abide  by  this  sure  rule,  and  refrain  from 
thoughts  about  God's  will  apart  from  His  Word.  For  God  Him- 
self declared  His  will  concerning  our  election  unto  eternal  sal- 

*  "Why,  here  you  can  see"" —  a  Missourian  might  say  —  "what  this 
Mecklenburg  Agenda  understands  by  election;  this  that  God  chose  from 
among  the  human  race  a  church  or  an  'acceptable  people',  certain  sinners 
therefore,  lying  by  nature  absolutely  in  the  same  depravity  as  the  rest, 
unto  His  call,  unto  faith,  etc.;  chose  them  in  preference  to  the  rest  (prae 
caeteris),  and  thus  instituted  among  those  equally  without  faith  a  gracious 
separation  of  persons  into  such  as  are  to  receive  salvation  and  such  as 
are  not  to  receive  it."  But  please,  not  so  fast,  my  dear  Missourian!  Our 
old  teachers  do  indeed  teach  the  election  of  a  church  of  the  elect  which 
alone  will  receive  salvation,  but  they  do  not  teach  this  election  like  Calvin 
and  Missouri  without  the  prior  consideration  of  future  faith;  on  the 
contrary,  they  teach  that  as  the  Scriptures  show  clearly,  this  election  took 
place  in,  with,  and  under  this  very  foresight  of  faith  in  Christ.  John  17, 
20:  "Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe 
on  me  through  their  word."  John  10.  16:  "And  other  sheep  I  have,  which 
are  not  of  this  fold"  (meaning  the  foreknown  believers  among  the  Gen- 
tiles): "them  also  I  must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my  voice."  And  for 
this  reason  the  Mecklenburg  Agenda  lays  stress  in  what  follows  on  the 
fact,  that  the  decree  of  election  bestowing  salvation  was  formed  exactly 
according  to  the  revealed  rule:    "He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved." 


294  Intuitu  Fidci. 

vation  in  the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  saying  (John  6,  40) :  'This 
is  the  will  of  the  Father  that  sent  me,  that  all  who  believe  in  the 
Son  shall  have  everlasting  life.'  Now  we  are  not  to  impute  to 
God,  who  is  not  a  false  or  double-tongued,  but  a  truthful,  con- 
stant, and  righteous  God,  a  contradictory  will,  as  though  He  de- 
clares and  promises  one  thing  in  His  Word,  and  resolves  secretly 
in  His  heart  to  do  the  very  opposite.  To  all  who  fear  His  wrath 
and  seek  consolation  in  the  Lord  Christ,  to  one  and  all  of  them 
grace  and  salvation  is  offered  and  promised,  as  is  declared,  Matt. 
11:  '  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  are  weary  and  heavy-laden,  and  I 
will  give  you  rest.'  Also:  'Whosoever  calleth  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  saved,'  Rom.  10.  For  both  proclamations  of  re- 
pentance and  forgiveness  of  sins,  or  of  punishment  and  of  grace, 
are  Universales,  that  is  universal,  Rom.  1  and  8:  'For  the  wrath 
of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and  un- 
righteousness of  men,  for  all  have  sinned.  The  righteousness  of 
Jesus  Christ,  how'ever,  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  and 
upon  all  them  that  believe.'  Rom.  10:  'There  is  the  same  Lord 
over  all  rich  mito  all  that  call  upon  Him.'  " 

"Since  now  God's  Son  Himself  declares  that  this  is  the  will 
of  our  eternal  God  and  Father,  that  all  who  believe  in  the  Son 
shall  have  everlasting  life,  and  that  all  wdio  believe  shall  not  per- 
ish, that  therefore  the  promise  of  grace  is  ofifered  to  all  men  with- 
out their  own  merit,  for  the  sake  of  the  Lord  Christ,  thou  shalt 
include  thyself  among  these  all,  and  shalt  know  that  this  is  the 
highest  and  most  serious  command,  that  we  should  hear  the  Son 
of  God  and  believe  Him;  as  the  eternal  Father  declares  from 
heaven :  'Hear  ye  Him,'  Matt.  17.  And  not  to  believe  the  Lord 
Christ  and  accept  His  grace  is  the  greatest  and  worst  of  all  sins. 
Ps.  2:  'Kiss  the  Son,'  accept  Him,  'lest  He  be  angry,  and  ye 
perish  from  the  way,  when  His  wrath  is  kindled  but  a  little.'  John 
16:  'The  Holy  Ghost  will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,'  of  this  sin, 
'because  they  believe  not  on  me.'  And  this  also  is  the  highest 
and  the  immutable  command  of  God,  that  we  believe  the  promise 
of  the  Lord  Christ,  which  offers  to  all  men  alike  grace  and  sal- 
vation." 

"When  now  thy  heart  is  troubled  with  thoughts  concerning 
eternal  election,  do  not  gaze  up  into  the  secret  decree  of  God  to 
discover  whether  thou  art  enrolled  in  the  list  of  those  predesti- 
nated to  salvation,  but  look  upon  Christ  and  upon  what  He  prom- 
ises in  His  Gospel  promises,  that  all  who  believe  in  Him  shall 


David  Lobech.  295 

have  everlasting  life.  If  now  thou  believest  in  Christ  and  dost 
not  fall  away  before  thy  death,  thou  art  and  wilt  remain  among 
the  number  of  the  elect,  no  matter  how  weak  at  times  thy  faith 
may  seem.  But  if  thou  dost  not  in  this  life  turn  thyself  to  Christ, 
or  dost  not  persevere  to  the  end,  thou  art  rejected.  John  3:  'He 
that  believeth  not  is  already  judged.'  Deut.  18:  'Whosoever 
will  not  hearken  unto  my  words  which  He  shall  speak  in  my  name, 
I  will  require  it  of  him.'  Hosea  13:  'Thou  hast  destroyed  thy- 
self; but  in  me  is  thine  help.'  Therefore  the  cause  of  the  rejection 
and  reprobation  of  the  damned  is  not  God's  eternal  purpose,  but 
our  own  sins."     (Page  114,  etc.) 


DAVID  LOBECH. 

David  Lobech:*  "When  we  say  that  we  are  chosen  in  Christ, 
we  do  not  consider  Christ  merely  as  being  God,  for  election 
belongs  to  the  whole  Trinity;  nor  do  we  regard  Him  merely  as 
being  man,  for  His  human  nature  would  have  been  too  weak  to 
efifect  our  union  with  God;  but  we  look  upon  Him  as  the  divine 
and  human  Mediator  and  the  bond  through  which  we  are  united 
with  God,  and  as  the  head,  in  whom  all  the  blessings  ofifered  to 
us  in  time  are  collected.  Hence  it  is  clear  that  in  this  matter 
Christ  must  be  considered  not  merely  (in  regard  to  the  prepara- 
tion of  His  merit,  but  alsof)  in  regard  to  its  appropriation  by  us. 
For  our  election  took  place  on  account  of  Christ's  merit,  and 
through  Him  and  in  Him  it  is  consummated.  Therefore  the 
mention  of  Christ  in  election  necessarily  includes  the  notion  of 
faith  which  embraces  Christ,  since  God  never  determined  to  save 
men  in  the  unknown,  despised,  and  neglected  Christ,  but  only 
in  Christ  as  appropriated  by  faith.     And  as  there  is  no  other  name 

*  Born  in  1560;  studied  at  Rostock  under  Chytrseus,  where  he  was 
made  Magister  in  1583  and  in  1594  professor  and  Dr.  of  Theology  by  the 
side  of  Chytrsus,  who  died  in  1600.  Lobech  died  in  1603,  only  43  years  of 
age.  As  a  member  of  the  theol.  faculty  he  Jook  part  in  the  proceedings 
against  Huber,  which  Chytrjeus  himself  directed.  His  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion is  identical  with  that  of  Chytreeus  and  Backmeister.  Although  he  is 
not  among  the  first  signers  of  the  F.  C,  he  belongs  entirely  to  this  circle, 
and  is  justly  looked  upon  as  a  representative  of  their  doctrine,  as  also  the 
contents  of  his  exposition  prove. 

t  The  words  placed  in  parenthesis  are  not  in  the  text  of  our  copy ;  but 
we  conclude  from  the  context  that  they  were  omitted  by  an  error  of  the 
printer. 


29(5  Intuitu  Fidel. 

under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we  may  be  saved,  so 
also  there  is  no  other  means  whereby  we  may  become  reconciled 
to  God  and  be  chosen  of  Him.  But  we  must  not  suppose  that 
faith  belongs  to  the  decree  of  election  as  an  efificient  or  working 
cause;  it  is  included  in  this  decree  merely  as  an  instrumental 
cause.  For  God  has  not  chosen  us  in  Christ  unto  sonship  for 
the  sake  of  foreseen  faith  or  of  its  worthiness  and  excellence,  but 
in  view  of  faith  and  with  the  condition  of  faith  (intuitu  et  condi- 
tione).  For  as  in  justification  and  the  bestowal  of  salvation  the 
cause  moving  God  to  justify  and  give  us  salvation  is  not  faith 
in  itself  (ipsa  per  se  fides),  but  Christ  embraced  in  His  merit  by 
faith,  so  also  God  is  not  moved  either  by  faith  or  by  the  foresight 
of  faith  to  elect  us;  on  the  contrary,  the  foreknown  cause  which 
is  of  such  exceeding  worth  that  on  account  of  it  we  were  chosen, 
is  none  but  the  foreknown  Christ  alone.  They,  therefore,  openly 
wrong  us  who  imagine  that  we  make  faith  a  cause  propter  quam 
(for  the  sake  of  which),  since  they  themselves  know  there  is  a 
great  difference  between  'through  faith'  and  'for  the  sake  of  faith.' 
The  former  is  employed  by  Paul  himself  and  designates  the  in- 
strument, and  is  therefore  used  by  us  not  only  in  the  article  of 
justification,  but  also  in  that  of  election  as  altogether  orthodox. 
The  latter  expression  is  papistic  and  includes  the  idea  of  merit, 
and  is  for  this  reason  rejected  by  us.*  The  object  of  election  are 
those  who  embrace  Christ  by  faith  and  persevere  in  faith  to  the 

*  It  is  interesting  and  characteristic  as  far  as  the  question  is  con- 
cerned, whether  Missouri  "always  had  the  same  doctrine''  of  predestina- 
tion, to  note  its  change  of  front  in  regard  to  the  expression:  "Election 
through  faith."  In  the  year  1861  "Lehre  und  Wehre"  began  to  bring 
"Theological  Aphorisms",  i.  e.  "sentences  recurring  again  and  again  in 
the  writings  of  theologians  and  containing  in  brief,  terse  expressions  a 
whole  sum  of  important  truths"  —  "containing  the  analogy  of  faith"  — 
"constituting  a  safe  regulative  for  theological  investigations"  etc.  (See 
"L.  u.  W.",  '61,  4).  In  the  very  next  number  the  following  aphorism  is 
given  in  regard  to  predestination:  "Not  on  account  of  faith,  but  through 
faith  we  are  chosen  unto  salvation."  In  the  year  1872  Dr.  Walther  still 
appeals  to  the  fact,  that  formerly  he  had  stated  this  sentence  as  "the  es- 
tablished axiom  of  Lutheran  theology  from  our  older  dogmaticians"  (see 
"L.  u.  W.",  72,  132  note),  using  this  appeal  now  to  prove  that  "Our  (Mis- 
souri) Synod"  had  faithfully  adhered  to  the  real  doctrine  of  the  fathers 
and  even  emphasized  it  over  against  the  foes  of  our  Church.  Yea,  even 
in  the  Report  of  '77  Quenstedt's  words  are  quoted  as  "the  correct  doctrine 
of  predestination":  "We  are  chosen  not  on  account  of,  but  through  faith 
and  in  Him"  (p.  84).  But  this  same  Wahher  declared  at  the  Chicago  Con- 
ference  (Protocoll,   p.    67):     "Our   opponents   would   like   to    insert   faith 


David  Lobech.  297 

end  of  their  lives.  For  as  God  rejects  every  non-believer  and 
every  one  who  does  not  persevere  in  faith,  so  He  gives  salvation 
to  every  believer  and  every  one  who  persevers  in  faith;  and  as 
He  elects  the  latter,  so  He  rejects  the  former."  (Synopsis  doctri- 
nae  de  Praedest,  §  53-57.) 

"When  we  teach,  the  foresight  of  faith  is  included  in  the  de- 
cree of  election,  we  do  not  mean  that  we  are  elected  for  the  sake 
of  faith,  much  less  that  faith  in  any  way  depends  on  our  powers, 
but  we  only  designate  the  means  without  which  there  is  for  God 
no  justification  of  a  sinner,  and  likewise  no  election  or  bestowal 
of  salvation.  Nor  do  we  mean  that  faith  is  here  to  be  valued  in 
itself,  but  because  of  the  nature  of  its  object,  namely  Christ  who 
is  embraced,  for  whose  sake  we  are  both  chosen  unto  life,  and 
also  justified.  Nor  is  this  our  meaning,  that  faith  actually  pre- 
cedes election;  on  the  contrary,  we  consider  faith  as  God  in  His 
eternal  purpose  resolved  to  bestow  it  through  the  regular  means 
upon  those  who  use  these  means  aright;  and  in  part  also,  as  God 
in  every  single  case  foreknows,  or  sees  in  the  now  of  eternity, 
who  will  in  reality  obtain  faith  through  the  use  of  the  means  and 
through  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence,  although  elec- 
tion precedes  faith,  inasmuch  as  it  is  considered  to  have  taken 
place  in  eternity,  and  faith,  as  given  in  time,  is  as  it  were  sub- 
joined to  election,  nevertheless  inasmuch  as  God  has  all  things, 
whether  for  us  they  be  future  -or  past,  ever  present  before  Him, 
and  believers  likewise  —  in  so  far  election  includes  also  faith. 
And  thus  we  do  not  precede  election  with  our  faith;  but  God, 
inasmuch  as  by  His  foreknowledge  He  takes  into  consideration 
the  entire  order  which  He  determined  to  follow  in  bestowing 
salvation,  includes  faith  in  the  decree  of  election"  (§  78-80). 

where  causes  are  spoken  of.  If  they  would  say:  We  are  chosen  through 
faith,  it  might  be  more  acceptable  (if  thereby  they  would  mean:  inasmuch 
as  God  predestinated  us  to  bring  us  unto  faith  and  to  keep  us  therein), 
athough  this  too  is  not  the  language  of  the  Church."  Note  then  in  the 
first  place:  What  was  only  a  short  time  before  "the  established  axiom  of 
Lutheran  theology"  and  a  shibboleth  of  orthodoxy  is  now  no  more  "the 
language  of  the  Church"!  Secondly:  To  say  that  we  are  chosen  through 
faith  would  "be  more  acceptable"  only  then,  when  we  put  into  the  words 
a  meaning  they  never  had  nor  can  legitimately  have:  "inasmuch  as  God 
predestinated  us  to  bring  us  unto  faith  and  to  keep  us  therein."  But  don't 
ever  say  a  word  here  about  Crypto-Calvinistic  fox-theology!  !  That  would 
not  do.  And  our  Norwegian  Missourians  still  claim  to-day  that  Missouri 
teaches  an  election  "through  faith'',  and  merely  rejects  an  election  "for 
the  sake  of  faith"!  —  Woe  unto  you!  woe  unto  you! 


298  hi  til  it ic  Fidei. 

"When  then  it  is  asked,  which  is  more  correct,  to  say:  God 
elected  'believers,'  or  to  say,  'He  elected  those  who  will  believe,' 
we  answer:  Both  can  be  said  in  truth  and  with  the  correct  mean- 
ing. For  God  does  not  see  and  understand  by  gradually  learn- 
ing or  by  making  deductions,  but  sees  and  understands  every- 
thing altogether  at  one  glance  and  with  one  act  of  the  intellect; 
and  for  Him  who  lives  outside  of  time  in  eternity,  there  is  nothing 
future,  but  everything  always  present;  therefore,  it  is  more  really 
the  believing  than  those  who  will  believe  (credituros),  whom  He 
predestinates  unto  salvation.  And  yet,  when  we  turn  to  the  act 
of  believing,  and  consider  those  who  by  the  use  of  the  means 
and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  will  obtain  faith,  it  is  correct  to 
say  that  God  predestinated  those  who  will  believe.  For  those 
whom  He  from  eternity  foreknew  as  such  who  will  believe  in 
Christ,  He  in  His  mercy  elected  unto  eternal  life.  Hence  the 
Savior  says,  John  17,  20:  'Neither  pray  I  for  these  (the  apostles) 
alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their 
word.'  And  in  describing  those  who  are  predestinated  unto  sal- 
vation, Paul,  1  Tim.  1,  16,  calls  them  mellontas  pisteuein,*  such 
as  'shall  hereafter  believe  on  Him.'  "     (§  90,  91,) 


JOHN  WINCKELMANN. 

John  Winckelmann:f  "Election  unto  eternal  life  took  place 
in  eternity  according  to  the  purpose  and  good  pleasure  of  God, 
Rom.  8,  28;  Eph.  1,  8.  9.  11;  2  Tim.  1,  9.     This  purpose  includes 

*  According  to  Missouri's  view  the  proper  expression  in  1  Tim.  1,  16. 
would  be:  proorismenous  eis  pistin,  i.  e.  those  who  are  predestined  or 
foreordained  unto  faith.  But  Paul  is  satisfied  to  say  mellontas:  which 
should  hereafter  believe.  The  reverse  of  this  is  the  word:  "For  all  men 
have  not  faith"  (Der  Glaube  ist  nicht  jedermannes  Ding).  The  old  Church 
therefore  frequently  called  the  elect  simply  the  praesciti,  the  foreknown. 

t  Born  1551;  studied  at  Marburg  and  was  there  made  Magister  in 
1572.  Later  he  attended  other  universities  of  southern  Germany  at  the 
expense  of  the  Landgrave  William;  was  made  Dr.  of  theology  at  Basel 
in  1581;  court-preacher  at  Kassel  in  1582;  and  professor  at  Marburg  in 
1592.  According  to  Hutter's  narrative  of  the  life  of  Hunnius  Winckel- 
mann  was  professor  together  with  Arcularius  at  Marburg  already  in  1576; 
these  two,  he  tells  us,  after  Hunnius  was  called  to  Marburg,  soon  induced 
him  to  return  to  Tuebingen  to  secure  the  Doctor's  degree,  which  he  also 
received  on  the  same  day  with  Polycarp  Leyser,  his  most  intimate  friend, 
under  Heerbrand  and  Andrese. 


John   W'inckclmann.  299^ 

all  causes  and  means  which  God  ordained  for  man's  salvation. 
For  1)  God  determined  in  Himself  that  in  His  boundless  mercy 
He  would  establish  His  Son  as  the  Alediator  and  Redeemer  for 
the  human  race,  of  which  He  foresaw  that  it  would  fall  into  sin 
and  death.  —  2)  He  determined  that  He  would  call  mankind  by 
His  servants  unto  the  marriage  feast  of  His  Son,  i.  e.  unto  the 
partaking  of  His  blessings,  and  ofTer  them  these  blessings  through 
the  preaching  of  the  Word  and  the  administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments. For  He  revealed  the  mystery  of  His  will,  Eph.  1,  9.  —  3) 
He  determined  that  He  would  work  and  preserve  the  knowledge' 
of  Himself  and  faith  through  the  hearing  of  the  Word  and  the 
use  of  the  Sacraments  by  the  power  of  His  Holy  Spirit.  —  4)  That 
He  would  justify  those  believing  in  His  Son,  5)  sanctify  them 
in  love,  6)  protect  them  against  the  devil  and  death,  7)  preserve, 
by  these  same  means,  those  who  believe  and  pray,  through  His 
power,  in  faith  unto  the  end,  and  finally  glorify  them.  From 
this,  on  the  other  hand,  it  follows  that  He  will  leave  and  con- 
demn the  despisers  of  His  W^ord,  the  blasphemous  enemies  of 
His  Son,  those  who  leave  Christ  and  seek  other  ways  for  salva- 
tion, the  recreant,  etc..  according  to  the  word  (1  Sam.  2,  30): 
'They  that  despise  me  shall  be  lightly  esteemed.'  This  is  the 
Father's  purpose,  decree  and  good  pleasure.*  Those  who  hear 
God's  call  according  to  His  purpose,  believe  in  Christ,  and  by 
the  grace  of  God  persevere  in  faith  till  the  end,  are  kata  pro- 
gnosin  theou  (according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God)  elected 
unto  eternal  life.  From  which  it  follows,  because  all  do  not  hear 
God's  call,  do  not  believe  in  Christ,  and  persevere  in  faith,  all, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  are  not  elected  unto  eternal  life. 
God's  purpose  and  good  pleasure  regarding  our  salvation  is  in- 
deed for  all  men,  because  He  wants  all  men  to  come  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  truth  and  be  saved,  1  Tim.  2,  4;  because  He  has 
given  Christ  to  be  a  Mediator  and  Redeemer  for  all  together  and 
for  each  and  every  one  in  particular,  and  Christ  died  according 
to  God's  counsel  for  every  single  person  among  men;  and  be- 
cause He  finally  also  proclaimed  to  the  whole  world  the  great 
blessing  of  His  Son.  But  on  account  of  the  cause  mentioned 
above  not  all,  but  only  a  few  are  elected."  (Disp.  Giess.  4,  38. 
Cf.  5,  239,  where  some  points  are  added,  and  where  God's  fore- 

*  In  this  way  Winckelmann  understood  the  F.  C,  the  eight  points  of 
which  he  here  evidently  reproduces.  The  especial  act  of  election  took 
place  accordin.s:  to  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation. 


300  IntidtH  Fidei. 

knowledge  of  believers  is  emphasized  still  more  according  to 
Rom.  8,  20,  and  where  we  read  toward  the  end :  "This  entire  order 
of  the  causes  and  means  of  salvation,  through  which  God  in 
Himself  resolved  to  lead  those  He  had  thus  foreknown  (ita  prge- 
cognitos)  unto  the  final  goal,  i.  e.  unto  glorification  and  salva- 
tion, the  holy  apostle  summarized  in  the  golden  utterance,  Rom. 
8,  29.  30:    'Whom  He  did  foreknow,'"  etc.) 

"The  purpose  of  God  and  the  grace  of  Christ  is  revealed 
to  us  by  the  appearance  of  Christ,  and  brought  to  light  by  the 
Gospel,  just  as  this  purpose  was  formed  and  this  grace  given  in 
eternity.  Thus  Christ  was  known  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  but  revealed  in  the  last  times;  and  God  also  promised 
before  the  time  of  the  world  the  counsel  and  wisdom  regarding 
our  salvation  which  His  apostles  proclaimed.  For  He  revealed 
the  mystery  of  His  will,  which  He  had  determined  in  Himself, 
according  to  His  good  pleasure.  But  He  revealed  to  us  in  the 
Gospel  that  He  would  justify  and  save  those  believing  in  Christ. 
This  then  is  the  hidden  purpose  of  the  divine  will  which  God 
had  determined  in  Himself.  We  therefore  hold  to  the  theolog- 
ical aphorism:  The  causes  of  justification  are  at  the  same  time 
causes  of  election.  For  the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed  in 
the  Gospel,  Rom.  1,  17.  But  what  is  this  righteousness?  God 
so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  ever- 
lasting life.  If  the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed  by  the  Gos- 
pel, it  follows  that  this  righteousness  was  before  its  revelation 
hidden  in  God,  and  that  this  righteousness  is  the  very  purpose 
of  God  which  He  formed  in  regard  to  our  salvation."     (P.  259.) 

"How  then  do  we  regard  faith  in  election?  We  say,  it  be- 
longs to  the  order  of  causes  and  means  which  God  in  His  eternal 
purpose  and  counsel  established  in  regard  to  the  work  of  saving 
men.  For  He  resolved  and  determined,  that  of  His  pure  mercy 
and  grace,  and  for  the  sake  of  Christ  our  Mediator  and  Redeemer, 
He  would  save  men  through  faith,  which  He  Himself  would  give 
and  work  through  the  preaching  and  hearing  of  the  Word  (which 
is  the  office  of  the  Spirit)  and  through  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Those,  therefore,  who  believe  in  Christ  according  to  this 
counsel  and  purpose  of  God,  are  chosen  of  Him,  are  justified  by 
Him,  and  finally  glorified.  Accordingly,  faith  is  one  of  the  links 
(unum)  in  this  order  of  causes  and  means,  whether  you  call  it 


John   Winckebnann.  301 

an  instrumental  cause,  or  a  means;  it  embraces  the  grace  of  God 
or  Christ  with  all  His  merit,  and  God,  as  far  as  faith  is  concerned,, 
sees  nothing  whatever  in  us,  but  only  Christ  as  embraced  by  faith; 
and  faith  also  sees  nothing  in  us  as  being  in  us,  but  only 
Christ,  the  foundation  of  salvation,  bestowed  upon  us  by  the 
boundless  mercy  of  God,  on  which  faith  alone  rests  with  con- 
fidence. This  is  shown  by  the  Scripture:  'God  so  loved 
the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  Hfe,'  John  3,  16;  John  6,  40;  1  Tim.  2,  4; 
1  Cor.  1.  21;  2  Thess.  2,  13.  Here  you  have  the  love  of  God 
toward  all  men,  the  Son  as  the  Redeemer  of  the  world,  faith  in 
Christ,  according  to  the  will  and  good  pleasure  of  God.  You 
have  election  in  true  faith,  and  in  all  the  Scriptures  there  is  no 
other  purpose  of  God  according  to  which  election  took  place. 
What  He  determined  in  His  eternal  counsel  and  good  pleasure, 
that  He  revealed  in  the  Gospel.  Election  took  place  according 
to  God's  foreknowledge,  1  Peter  1,  1.  2.  'Whom  He  did  foresee, 
them  He  also  did  predestinate,'  Rom.  8,  29.  Either  He  fore- 
knew, predestinated,  called,  justified  non-believing  men,  or  men 
believing  in  Christ.  But  He  did  not  foreknow,  etc.,  non-believers^ 
for  to  these  He  will  say:  I  never  knew  you.  Matt.  7,  24.  There- 
fore Ele  foreknew  men  believing  in  Christ  who  love  God.  Of 
these  the  apostle  speaks.  We  must  hold  fast  that  the  causes 
of  election  are  identical  with  those  of  purely  merciful  justification 
before  God.  But  the  causes  of  our  justification  are  the  grace 
and  mercy  of  God,  Christ  the  Redeemer,  and  faith  in  His  blood, 
Rom.  3,  24.  25.  Therefore,  these  are  also  the  causes  of  our  elec- 
tion" (p.  269). 

In  his  "Repetition  of  the  Chief  Parts  of  Christian  Doctrine," 
a  small  dogmatics,  Winckelmann  writes:  "This  will  of  God,  call- 
ing all  men  unto  the  marriage  feast  of  His  Son,  is  a  serious  wilU 
since  our  high  and  beneficent  God  is  not  capable  of  calling  men 
outwardly,  and  still  desiring  inwardly  that  they  may  not  come; 
which  would  be  unworthy  even  of  an  honest  man,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  most  holy  God.*     But  that  most  men  do  not  come  is  not 

*  This  notion  Missouri  cherisiied  for  years,  by  confessing  a  doctrine 
in  its  organs  "most  decidedly",  while  rejecting  it  at  heart  as  a  "deviation 
from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Symbol."  It  even  goes  so  far  as  to  impute 
to  God  a  like  procedure,  for  it  tells  us  that  God  would  have  all  who  are 
now  in  faith  imagine,  and  regard  it  as  their  right  and  even  their  duty  to 


■302  Intuihi  Fidei. 

God's  fault,  but  their  own,  since  they  themselves  turn  their  backs 
upon  God  and  despise  the  grace  offered  in  the  Gospel.*  'How 
often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,'  says  Christ, 
'even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye 
would  not,'  which  applies  to  all  who  reject  the  divine  grace. 
When  therefore  the  question  of  predestination  or  the  election  of 
God's  children  unto  eternal  life  comes  up,  our  (Luth.)  Church 
explains  the  purpose,  counsel,  and  good  pleasure  of  God  regard- 
ing the  saving  of  men  in  the  following  summary  way:  God  de- 
termined 1)  to  have  mercy  on  the  human  race,  whose  fall  He 
foreknew,  through  the  intervention  of  His  Son's  substitution  and 
assured  satisfaction;  2)  to  free  the  world  from  its  misery  through 
the  Son  sent  into  the  world;  3)  to  call  men  to  partake  of  the 
benefits  prepared  by  His  Son;  4)  to  enlighten  and  convert  those 
who  come,  through  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments,  and  throug-h 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  5)  to  justify  those  who  believe;  6) 
to  preserve  those  who  are  justified  against  the  devil  and  the 
world,  by  the  same  means;  7)  and  finally  to  glorify  them.  All 
these  are  purely  merciful  gifts  and  blessings  of  God,  in  which 
no  works  or  merits  of  men  were  considered.  Those,  therefore, 
who  are  called  according  to  this  purpose,  and  who  come  to  the 
marriage  feast,  and  perseveringly  believe  in  Christ,  are  elected 
unto  eternal  life;  while  the  rest,  who  reject  this  will  of  God,  are 
•eternally  lost.  This  doctrine  is  based  on  the  following  passages 
of  Scripture:  Eph.  1,  4-6.  9.  11;  2  Tim.  1,  9;  2  Thess.  2,  13. 
Note  well,  we  claim  that  those  who  perseveringly  believe  in 
Christ  are  the  elect  children  of  God.  For  it  occurs  that  those 
who  are  once  justified  lose  again  the  grace  of  God  by  falling  into 
errors  and  prevailing  sin;  yea,  this  happens  even  to  such  as  be- 
long to  the  elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  (prse- 
cognitio),  who,  however,  when  reminded  of  their  fall,  repent  and 
receive  salvation,  of  whom  David  is  an  example.     He  commit- 


believe,  on  the  basis  of  His  promise,  that  they  really  belong  to  the  elect, 
although  He  knows  that  election  has  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  temporary 
believers. 

*  According  to  Missouri's  doctrine  concerning  "the  hidden  God"  He 
"could  have  removed"  their  resistance  "just  as  easily"  as  He  removed  it 
in  the  rest;  but  He  deals  —  with  those  resisting  alike  —  "according  to  His 
sovereign  right  to  have  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  and  to  harden 
whom  He  will  harden"!  Whose  fault  then  is  it  when  the  non-elect  re- 
main in  their  resistance?  ! 


John   Winckelmann.  803 

ted  adultery  and  murder  and  yielded  against  his  conscience  to 
these  terrible  sins;  but  when  the  prophet  Nathan  admonished 
and  rebuked  him,  he  repented"  (p.  25-28). 

"God  in  His  righteousness  could  never  think  of  receiving 
fallen  men  in  mercy,  without  at  the  same  time  thinking  of  atone- 
ment for  their  sins  and  cancellation  of  the  same.  And  just  as 
God  in  justification,  which  is  the  execution  of  election,  justifies 
no  one  save  those  who  believe  in  Christ,  so  He  also  resolves 
to  elect  to  eternal  life  no  one  save  those  who  believe  in  Christ, 
since  no  one  can  please  God  without  faith,  Heb.  11.  ...  As  in 
our  purely  merciful  justification  faith  is  required,  which  comes 
by  preaching,  so  faith,  which  comes  by  preaching,  is  also  included 
in  the  decree  of  election.  And  that  is  why  Peter  here  (1  Peter  1, 
1.  2)  qualifies  election  by  the  Prognosis  (foreknowledge,  prse- 
cognitio)  of  God  the  Father.  For  of  whom  God  the  Father 
foreknew  that  they  through  the  Word  and  Sacraments  would 
believe  in  His  Son  Christ,  those  He  elected  according  to  His 
•order  unto  eternal  life.  And  this  is  the  reason  why  election  is 
particular,  all  do  not  through  the  Word  believe  in  the  Son;  for 
salvation  is  of  God,  but  destruction  is  of  men,  Hosea  13.  How 
often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  etc.  Matt. 
23.  The  mediate  object  of  election,  if  regard  is  had  to  ourselves, 
is  that  we  should  be  holy  and  blameless,  Eph.  1;  the  final  object 
eternal  life.  As  regards  God  its  object  is  the  praise  of  His  glor- 
ious .grace."     (Comment.) 

"Christ  is  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of 
the  world.  This  universal  grace  is  offered  in  the  Word  to  all 
men.  But  why  are  not  all  chosen?  Why  do  not  all  receive  sal- 
vation? Because  they  despise  the  grace  offered  in  the  Word, 
revile  it,  refuse  to  repent,  live  on  in  sins  against  conscience,  or 
fail  to  hold  fast  the  sure  hope  unto  the  end,  2  Peter  2.  This  God 
sees,  all  things  being  ever  present  before  Him,  and  therefore 
He  does  not  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  write  their  names 
in  the  book  of  life.  Do  you  ask  now  whether  faith  is  in  the 
power  of  man?  —  No,  most  certainly  not,  for  it  is  God's  work 
that  we  believe  and  persevere  in  faith.  God  bestows  the  gift 
of  faith  and  of  perseverance  through  the  Word  and  the  use  of 
the  Sacraments.  'Hear  ye  Him.'  Who  therefore  does  not  hear 
the  Son  will  not  receive  faith,  but  remain  in  unbelief;  hence  his 
damnation  is  just."     (Comment,  in  Apoc.  17,  8.) 


304  Intuitu  Fidei. 

ADAM  FRANCISCI. 

Adam  Francisci,  another  of  our  witnesses  from  among  the 
original  P\  C.  theologians,  was  the  Abbot,  i,  e.  Director,  in  1580, 
of  the  preparatory  school  of  theology,  into  which  the  Cistercian 
cloister  Heilbronn  had  been  converted,  in  the  Margraviate  of 
Brandenburg,  whose  capital  at  that  time  was  Onolzbach  (Onol- 
diae,  to-day  Anspach).  Francisci's  testimony  will  interest  Ba- 
varian Lutherans  especially,  for  what  was  then  the  March  of 
Brandenburg  now  constitutes  essentially  Upper,  Middle,  and 
Lower  Franconia  in  Bavaria.  As  appears  from  the  preface  of 
his  Margarita  Theologige,  to  which  we  are  indebted  for  this  tes- 
timony, Francisci  had  been  in  the  service  of  the  Margrave  George 
Frederick,  whose  father  George  was  one  of  the  confessors  at 
Augsburg,  already  for  18  years  when  the  F.  C.  was  adopted.  In 
the  official  record  of  the  original  signers  of  the  F.  C.  in  the  Mar- 
graviate Francisci's  name  appears  at  the  head  of  the  list  with- 
the  letters  "M.  S."  (Senior  Ministerii),  which  as  a  rule  showed 
that  the  person  concerned  held  the  highest  ecclesiastical  offices 
and  was  regarded  as  the  leader  among  the  clerics  of  his  province. 
The  Margarita  is  a  compend  of  Theology,  in  the  form  of  ques- 
tions and  answers,  composed  by  Francisci  at  the  request  of  the 
Margrave  and  published  in  1592.  The  little  volume  was  to  be 
compiled  from  "orthodox  writings,"  acknowledged  to  be  such, 
and  was  meant  for  use  as  a  text-book  for  higher  schools,  and  as 
an  Examinatorium  in  the  examination  of  candidates  for  the  min- 
istry. Francisci  states  in  the  preface  that  he  has  followed  closely 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  the  Formula  of  Concord.  "And 
I  have  faithfully  and  accurately  retained,"  he  writes,  "not  merely 
the  substance,  but  also  the  language  and  forms  of  expression 
which  recur  frequently  in  the  writings  referred  to,  so  that  it  may 
appear  to  all  that  the  churches  and  schools  of  this  region  are 
not  bringing  out  a  new  kind  of  doctrine  (novum  doctrinae  genus)." 
The  article  on  predestination  evidently  follows  closely  the  11th 
Article  of  the  F.  C,  yet  shows  clearly  what  we  have  already  seen 
so  fully  in  the  foregoing  testimonies  from  the  theologians  of  the 
F.  C. :  either  Missouri  has  now  discovered  the  true  meaning 
of  the  F.  C.  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  election  to  faith,  and 
then  all  these  theologians  of  the  F.  C.  had  already  deviated  from 
the  Confession;  or  these  theologians  of  the  time  and  Church 
of  the  F,  C.  had  the  correct  understanding  of  the  Symbol,  and 


Adatn  Francisci.  305 

then  Missouri  is  groping  wofully  in  the  dark!  But  let  us  hear 
Francisci's  doctrine. 

Question:  "What  is  God's  predestination  or  election?"'* — 
Answer:  "It  is  the  purpose  of  the  divine  will,  or  the  eternal  de- 
cree in  which  God  from  infinite  mercy,  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  chose  from  among  the  human  race,  in  His  Son, 
and  for  the  sake  of  His  Son,  revealed  in  the  promise  of  grace, 
unto  salvation  and  eternal  life,  all  those  who  believe  in  the  Son 
and  persevere  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  and  in  faith,  that  they 
should  be  holy  and  blameless  before  Him  and  praise  His  infinite 
grace  and  goodness  to  all  eternity,  Eph.  1,  4." 

"Is  God's  predestination  or  election  the  cause  of  the  salva- 
tion of  the  elect? — Certainly.  For  it  procures  the  salvation  of 
the  elect,  to  whom  alone  it  pertains,  and  orders  everything 
belonging  thereto.  And  upon  this  predestination  or  election  of 
God  the  salvation  of  the  elect  is  so  surely  founded  that  not  even 
the  gates  of  hell  shall  prevail  against  it.  Matt.  16,  18.  And  Paul 
writes:  'I  am  persuaded  that  nothing  can  separate  us  from  the 
love  of  God  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  Rom.  8,  38."t 

"Where  must  we 'seek  the  true  doctrine  of  God's  predesti- 


*  Do  not  fail  to  note  this  definition  of  election  placed  by  Francisci  at 
the  head  of  his  whole  exposition.  It  throws  a  clear  light  upon  all  that 
follows. 

t  In  this  very  question  and  answer,  which  might  tempt  St.  Louis  to 
adopt  Francisci  as  their  "brother  in  the  faith",  it  appears  clearly  that  the 
original  F.  C.  theologians  understood  the  words  of  the  Confession,  which 
declare  1)  that  predestination  pertains  only  to  the  children  of  God,  and  2) 
is  a  "cause  of  their  salvation",  in  an  entirely  different  sense  from  that  put 
into  them  by  Missouri  to-day.  Missouri's  understanding  is  that  election 
is  "an  entirely  dififerent  thing"  from  the  universal  counsel  of  election^  an 
entirely  separate  "decree",  which  1)  pertains  only  to  some  certain  persons 
from  among  the  mass  of  sinners  as  such,  all  lying  in  the  very  same  unbe- 
lief and  resistance  (which  "applying-only-to-these"  already  excludes  the 
others);  and  which  2)  differs  from  the  universal  counsel  of  election  in 
this  that  it  firmly  decrees  the  salvation  of  these  non-believing  sinners,  and 
"executes  itself"  in  spite  of  every  possible  kind  of  resistance  on  the  part 
of  the  elect.  The  F.  C.  theologians  understood  the  word  of  the  Confes- 
sion in  an  entirely  different  way.  According  to  their  interpretation,  pre- 
destination as  the  complete  decree  of  salvation  applies  only  to  those  as 
such  who  persevere  in  faith,  who  therefore  are  foreseen  as  believers;  and 
this  complete  decree  of  salvation  is  the  cause  of  the  salvation  of  the  elect, 
not  inasmuch  as  it  is  contrary  to  the  universal  order  of  salvation,  but  by 
virtue  of  this  order.  Missouri,  however,  sneers  at  tlfis  as  a  "self-evident 
conclusion"! 


306  Intuitu  Fidei. 

nation  or  election?  —  Not  in  the  Law,  nor  in  our  human  reason, 
a  knowledge  of  sin,  and  shows  the  wrath  of  God,  frightening 
but  only  in  the  Gospel  revealed  to  us  by  God's  Son.  For  the 
Law  condemns  man,  one  like  the  other,  because  of  sin,  leads  to 
men's  hearts  as  with  a  lightning-flash,  so  that  they  sink  into 
despair,  if  no  consolation  come  to  them  from  somewhere  else. 
Human  reason  pictures  God  as  a  state-judge  who  according  to  his 
mere  pleasure  writes  immutable  laws  in  heaven  that  certain  men 
shall  be  necessarily  damned.  The  Gospel,  however,  is  the  reve- 
lation of  divine  predestination  or  election,  because  God  revealed 
in  it  all  His  counsel  concerning  our  salvation,  through  the  Son 
(the  logos,  the  Word),  Acts  20,  27;  John  1,  18.  Therefore  Paul 
teaches  that  the  mystery  of  God's  will  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel, 
Rom.  16,  26;    Eph.  1,  9;    3,  9;    2  Tim.  1,  10.* 

"What  is  the  doctrine  (sententia)  of  the  Gospel  concerning 
God's  predestination  or  election?  —  This  doctrine  of  the  Gospel 
is  expressed  in  the  following  passages  of  Scripture:  Ezek.  33,  11: 
'As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
of  the  wicked;  but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live.* 
John  3,  16:  'God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  per- 
ish, but  have  everlasting  life.  For  God  sent  not  His  Son  into 
the  world  to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world  through 
Him  might  be  saved.  He  that  believeth  on  Him  is  not  con- 
demned.' John  5,  24:  'Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  he  that 
heareth  my  word,  and  believeth  on  Him  that  sent  me,  hath  ever- 
lasting life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation,  but  is  passed 
from  death  into  life.'  John  6,  40:  'And  this  is  the  will  of  Him 
that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son  and  believeth 
on  Him  may  have  everlasting  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the 
last  day.'t 

*  Most  assuredly,  the  "true  doctrine"  concerning  the  final  decree  of 
salvation  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel  as  clearly  as  possible.  Only  by  a  nefari- 
ous denial  of  this  revelation  can  a  new  "mystery"  be  set  up  here. 

t  But  where,  where  —  the  Missourians  must  cry  in  amazement  —  is 
there  one  word  concerning  "predestination"  in  all  these  passages?  ! 
Where  is  the  word  "chose"  or  "elect"  in  any  of  them?  Not  one  of  these 
passages  treats  of  election.  Why  it  is  utterly  outrageous  (for  one  hold- 
ing Missouri's  standpoint  and  judging  of  Francisci's  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion according  to  this  standpoint)  mdeed,  utterly  outrageous,  to  hear  that 
these  passages,  which  contain  not  a  living  word  about  "predestination", 
but   speak  only   of  the   universal   counsel    of   salvation,   therefore   about 


Adam  Francisci.  307 

"Is  the  decree  of  the  Gospel  concerning  the  salvation  of 
the  elect  an  absolute  or  a  relative  decree?  —  It  is  not  at  all  an 
absolute  decree,  on  the  contrary  it  is  relative.  For  it  does  not 
depend  on  the  hidden  will  of  God,  which  God  wanted  to  be  and 
to  remain  unknown  to  man  in  this  life,  but  it  depends  simply 
on  the  will  revealed  in  the  Gospel  and  proclaimed  in  the  Son, 
the  Mediator  and  Redeemer  of  the  human  race.  Hence  it  re- 
quires faith  in  the  Son  of  God,  and  declares  that  those  are  heirs 
of  eternal  life  who  embrace  the  Son,  the  Mediator  and  Redeemer, 
by  faith,  and  persevere  in  this  faith  till  the  end;  according  to 
the  word,  John  3,  36:  'He  that  believeth  in  the  Son  hath  ever- 
lasting life.'  And  Matt.  24,  13:  'He  that  shall  endure  unto  the 
end,  the  same  shall  be  saved.'  "* 

Francisci  continues:  "What  is  the  cause  of  predestination 
or  election  unto  eternal  life?  —  We  dare  not  seek  one  cause  for 
justification,  and  another  for  election,  but  the  same  cause  which 
is  the  cause  of  justification  is  also  the  cause  of  election;  namely 
the  undeserved  mercy  of  God,  the  infinite  goodness  and  unspeak- 
able love  of  God  toward  the  miserable  human  race,t  which  He 
would  not  permit  to  be  lost  entirely,  since  it  was  created  to  be 
the  inheritance  and  property  of  His  Son;   as  it  is  declared,  John 


"an  entirely  different  thing",  that  these  passages  should  express 
"the  correct  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  concerning  predestination"! 
—  But  please  remember,  we  would  answer,  Francisci  does  not 
wish  to  state  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  Walther  or  of  the  Missouri  Synod,  but 
of  the  "Gospel."  The  F.  C.  itself  tells  us  that  election  "is  revealed  in  the 
Gospel",  as  all  men  are  to  hear  it  and  seek  their  "election"  in  it.  And  so 
in  the  end  neither  Francisci,  nor  the  F.  C,  nor  any  one  else  could  bring 
more  fatting  passages  than  the  above  for  the  "election  revealed  in  the 
Gospel." 

*  In  these  two  respects  then  God's  election  is  not  absolute:  1)  In 
respect  to  the  Son  as  the  Redeemer;  2)  In  respect  to  faith  as  the  means 
of  being  united  with  Him.  And  this  election  which  is  not  absolute  nor 
regardless,  but  relative  and  with  respect  to  certain  things,  Franscici  finds 
expressed  in  the  v^rords:  He  that  believeth  in  the  Son  hath  life.  How  in 
the  world  does  this  F.  C.  theologian  —  even  before  the  controversy  with 
Huber  —  come  to  find  the  elective  decree  of  salvation  in  passages  which 
all  treat  of  an  "entirely  different  thing"?  Think  of  the  darkness  —  as  com- 
pared with  the  light  shining  now —  in  which  this  poor  man  lived! 

t  So  then  God's  universal  will  of  grace  is,  according  to  Francisci,  the 
"cause"  of  election,  and  not  a  particular  "elective  grace"  which  "applies 
only  to  a  few",  and  therefore  already  excludes  the  rest,  where  God's  mercy 
and  Christ's  merit  nevertheless  includes  them. 


308  Intidhi  Fidei. 

3,16:  'God  so  loved  the  world' ;  Eph.  1,  5:  'Having  predestinated 
us  unto  the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ  to  Himself, 
according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  His  will,  to  the  praise  of  the 
glory  of  His  grace.'  " 

"On  what  foundation  does  predestination  or  election  unto 
eternal  life  rest?  —  Upon  the  Son  of  God  alone,  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Mediator  and  Redeemer  of  the  human  race,  who  is 
the  Book  of  Life  into  which  all  are  inscribed  who  will  obtain 
everlasting  life,  Ex.  23,  32;  Rev.  21,  2.*  And  the  whole  num- 
ber of  those  who  are  to  receive  salvation  is  elected  in  the  Son 
of  God  and  for  the  sake  of  the  Son,  according  to  the  passage, 
Eph.  1,  4:  He  hath  chosen  us  in  Christ  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world.  Furthermore,  verse  6:  He  hath  made  us  accepted 
in  the  Beloved." 

Following  these  questions  Francisci  treats  of  the  universality 
of  Christ's  merit  and  of  the  evangelical  promise  of  grace,  and 
then  goes  on:  "How  is  the  promise  of  grace  in  the  Gospel  to 
be  embraced'  —  By  true  faith,  which  looks  upon  the  Son  of 
God,  the  Mediator,  and  appropriates  His  blessings  for  the  indi- 
vidual. For  by  this  faith  each  is  to  include  himself  in  the  uni- 
versal promise  of  grace,  and  is  to  believe  firmly  that  he  is  accept- 
able to  God  and  chosen  unto  eternal  life  in  the  Son  and  for  the 
sake  of  the  Son,  the  Mediator.f  For  this  reason  the  promise  of 
grace  correlatively  (correlative)  requires  faith,  according  to  the 
passage,  John  3,  16:  That  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should 
not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life." 

"Since  it  is  certain  that  not  all  men  will  embrace  the  promise 
of  grace  by  faith,  does  the  promise  for  this  reason  become  par- 
ticular?—  Although  a  large  part  of  the  human  race  remains  in 


*  They  are  inscribed  into  this  Book  of  Life  either  according  to  the 
universal  will  of  grace:  "Only  these  who  are  foreseen  as  believing  in 
Christ  shall  obtain  salvation  through  His  merit";  or  according  to  a  par- 
ticular will  of  grace:  "Only  these  sinners  as  such,  lying  by  nature  in  the 
same  depravity  as  the  rest,  shall  be  elected  a)  unto  salvation  and  therefore 
V)  unto  faith. 

t  As  also  Chemnitz,  Selnecker,  and  Kirchner  clearly  state  in  the 
Apology  of  the  Book  of  Concord:  "We  do  not  forget  that  all  who  truly 
repent  are  elected,  and  that  all  such  are  to  conclude  of  a  truth  that  they 
are  chosen  and  are  children  of  God,  in  and  through  Christ  in  whom  they 
believe."  Whether  they  all  will  remain  such  "chosen  children  of  God" 
is  a  dififerent  question,  about  which  we  are  not  to  trouble  our  thoughts  in 
advance. 


Adam  Francisci.  309 

unbelief  and  wilfully  rejects  the  promise  of  grace,  as  also  the 
Son  of  God  pictured  therein,  nevertheless  the  promise  does  not 
for  this  reason  become  particular,  but  is  and  remains  universal, 
because  it  depends,  not  on  the  faith  of  men,  but  on  the  truth  of 
God,  which  is  sure  and  immovable,  as  we  are  told,  Rom.  3,  34: 
Shall  their  unbelief  make  the  faith  of  God  without  efifect?  God 
forbid:    yea,  let  God  be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar,  Ps.  IIG,  11." 

"Does  election  itself  become  particular  on  account  of  the 
unbelief  of  men?  —  Election  becomes  particular  not  in  respect 
to  God,  but  in  respect  to  men.*  For  this  particularity  depends 
on  men,  who  by  their  rejection  of  the  promise  of  grace  and  by 
their  despising  the  Son  of  God  become  for  themselves  a  cause 
of  destruction  and  danmation,  as  Hosea  declares  13,  9:  'O  Israel, 
thou  hast  destroyed  thyself;    but  in  me  is  thine  help.' 

"Is  this  particularity  of  election  in  conflict  with  the  universal 
promise? — It  is  not  in  conflict  with  tlie  universal  promise,  on 
the  contrary  it  agrees  with  it  beautifully  (optime  cum  ea  congruit), 
since  it  is  included  and  subordinated  to  the  universal  promise 
(siquidem  ei  inclusa  est  et  subordinata.t)  For  the  promise  has 
its  limitation,  and  must  be  referred  to  those  who  believe  in  the 
Son  of  God.  Those  who  do  not  believe  exclude  themselves  by 
their  unbelief  from  the  universal  promise,  and  are  lost  by  their 


*  "Fit  particularis  electio,  non  Dei,  sed  hominum  respectu."  What  a 
cutting  contrast  to  Missouri's  doctrine!  Missouri  cannot  emphasize  and 
point  out  often  and  strong  enough  that  in  the  "mystery"  of  election  we 
come  upon  an  insolvable  contradiction  in  the  gracious  will  of  God,  He,  on 
the  one  hand,  desiring  all  to  be  saved,  and  on  the  other  hand  (in  predes- 
tination), not  desiring  all  to  be  saved  (according  to  the  unrevealed  decree- 
ing will).  Francisci  teaches,  according  to  God's  gracious  elective  will 
election  remains  universal,  and  only  becomes  a  particular  act  in  respect 
to  men. 

t  O  Francisci!  What  will  Missouri  say  when  it  hears  this?  —  of  you, 
such  an  exalted  F.  C.  man?  —  and  in  a  book  written  only  a  few  years  after 
the  adoption  of  the  F.  C.?  —  a  book  which  was  to  be  used  in  the  March  of 
Brandenburg  as  the  test  of  orthodoxy  for  candidates  for  the  ministry? 
Indeed,  what  shall  Missouri  say  when  it  finds  all  these  F.  C.  theologians 
declaring  that  the  decree  regarding  the  bestowal  of  salvation  is  expressed 
in  the  words:  "He  that  believeth  in  the  Son  hath  eternal  life"?  !  Could 
all  these  F.  C  theologians  see  and  understand  nothing  at  all,  when  I\Iis- 
souri  finds  the  F.  C.  teaching  as  "clearly  as  the  sun"  that  the  decree  of 
God  choosing  unto  eternal  life  is  "an  altogether  different  thing"  from  this 
"self-evident  conclusion"  drawn  from  the  universal  will  of  grace:  He 
that  believes  is  saved? 


310  Intuitu  Fidei. 

own  fault,  according  to  the  very  solemn  word,  John  3,  35:  'The 
Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into  His  hand. 
He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life:  and  he  that 
believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  hfe;  but  the  wrath  of  God 
abideth  upon  him,'  John  3,  36." 

"In  what  order  (quo  ordine)  does  God  reveal  His  election 
and  carry  it  out?  —  Paul  shows  the  order  clearly  when  he  de- 
clares, Rom.  8,  30:  'Whom  He  did  predestinate,  them  He  also 
called;  and  whom  He  called,  them  He  also  justified;  and  whom 
He  justified,  them  He  also'  glorified.'  For  God  first  revealed 
His  will  concerning  man's  salvation  in  the  Gospel,  and  calls 
through  the  office  of  the  proclaimed  Word  all  men  unto  His 
church  and  untO'  the  blessings  of  Jesus  Christ,  His  Son,  that 
they  may  earnestly  repent  and  embrace  the  blessings  of  Christ 
in  faith.  Then  also  He  operates  through  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
those  who  hear  the  Word,  enkindling  true  repentance  and  faith 
in  them,  and  giving  to  those  who  believe  forgiveness  of  sin, 
righteousness,  and  eternal  life.  Those  believers,  who  are  justi- 
fied by  faith.  He  also  regenerates  and  renews  through  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  protects  and  governs  them  in  their  manifold  weak- 
ness against  the  power  of  the  devil  and  the  world,  so  that  they 
may  continue  in  faith  and  a  good  conscience  to  the  end.  And 
finally,  when  they  are  raised  from  the  dead,  He  will  lead  them 
into  eternal  life,  and  adorn  them  in  the  heavenly  communion 
of  the  saints  with  unspeakable  glory."* 


POLYCARP  LEYSER. 

Polycarp  Leyser  (see  the  note  above)  did  not  merely  sign 
the  F.  C.  himself  as  Superintendent  and  professor  at  Wittenberg, 
but  also  labored  at  Wittenberg,  Torgau,  Herzberg,  and  Meissen 
to  obtain  the  signatures  of  others,  he  having  been  appointed 
to  visit  these  places  for  this  purpose.  He  was  besides  the  inti- 
mate friend  both  of  Andrese  and  of  Chemnitz,  and  edited  the 
posthumous  writings  of  the  latter  (Loci,  Fundamenta,  etc.),  and 


*  In  this  way  Francisci  also  summarizes  the  eight  points  of  the  F.  C. 
Universal  redemption  and  the  call  of  all  men  (of  course,  including  also 
foreknown  believers)  is,  according  to  Francisci,  as  also  according  to  the 
F.  C.  itself,  a  part  of  the  revelation  and  realization  of  predestination  as 
God  intended  it  for  all  men. 


Polycarp  Leyser.  311 

also  continued  the  Gospel  Harmony  v.^hich  Chemnitz  had  left 
unfinished.  He  died  in  1610.  Leyser  was  professor  at  Witten- 
berg beside  Hunnius  when  Huber  unpacked  his  doctrine  of  abso- 
lute universal  election,  and  it  even  appears  as  though  the  first 
clash  at  Wittenberg  occurred  between  him  and  Huber.  He 
zealously  took  part  in  the  controversy  through  writings  and 
sermons.  We  quote  from  one  of  his  writings  against  Huber 
as  follows: 

"According  to  His  antecedent  will  God  desires  that  all  men 
may  be  saved  and  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth,  1  Tim.  2. 
For  this  is  the  purpose  for  which  God  created  man,  for  which 
He  sent  His  Son  into  the  world  and  redeemed  the  human  race, 
yea,  for  which  He  ordered  all  the  means  of  the  Word  and  the 
Sacraments,  that  they  might  become  partakers  of  such  salva- 
tion. And  if  this  will  of  God  alone  constituted  election,  we  would 
soon  be  of  one  mind  and  agree  with  Huber,  for  in  this  antecedent 
will  there  is  no  error  whatevei',  why  all  men  should  not  be  saved. 
But  now  more  things  belong  to  predestination,  namely  our 
repentance,  faith,  and  perseverance;*  and  in  the  subsequent  will, 
i.  e.  God's  will  considered  as  requiring  also  our  obedience  and 
submission  to  His  Word,  in  this  will  (I  say)  the  deficiency  appears 
in  men,  that  they  do  not  attain  the  end  for  which  God  created 
them,  that  they  fail  to  become  partakers  of  His  predestination, 
that  instead  of  grace  they  receive  temporal  and  eternal  punish- 
ment, as  by  their  works  they  deserved"  (p.  23t). 

"He  who  rightly  looks  at  this  order  of  God  as  revealed  and 
founded  in  the  Scriptures,  and  receives  it  into  his  heart,  can 
understand  very  well,  how  indeed  the  means  which  God  ap- 
pointed for  obtaining  everlasting  life  are  universal,  so  that  no 
man  is  excluded  by  the  secret,  hidden  counsel  of  God,  and  how 
nevertheless  election  and  predestination  remains  particular"  (i.  e. 

*  That  is  according  to  the  foreseen  reality,  not  merely  according  to 
God's  gracious  intention. 

t  This  distinction  between  the  antecedent  and  the  subsequent  will  of 
God  Missouri  ridicules  with  Huber  as  rationalizing  and  useless.  It  pre- 
fers to  teach  two  gracious  wills  in  God,  each  flatly  contradicting  the  other; 
one  universal,  declaring:  "I  must  first  foresee  your  repentance,  faith,  and 
perseverance,  before  I  firmly  decree  your  salvation  through  Christ's 
merit";  the  other  a  particular  will  of  grace  (also  called  "predestination" 
"Gnadenwahl")  declaring:  "I  will  first  of  all  firmly  elect  and  predestinate 
you  ('this  and  that'  non-believing  sinner  in  Adam)  unto  salvation,  and 
thereby  also  unto  repentance,  unto  faith,  and  unto  perseverance." 


31l  Intuitu  Fidei. 

applying  only  to  a  few).  "For  God  made  this  order  for  all  men 
and  declared  in  His  Word  that  whosoever  follows  it  shall  be  His 
chosen  child.  Now  if  all  men  would  follow  this  order,  as  God 
in  mercy  desires  that  all  should,  then  all  would  be  saved,  1  Tim. 
2,  4.  But  since  the  majority  of  men  turn  from  this  order  of  God, 
and  since  God  does  not  wish  to  do  something-  particular  in  the 
case  of  each,  preferring-  to  abide  by  His  order  of  predestination 
as  once  revealed  in  the  Word,  ah  do  not  reach  the  goal  and  the 
treasure  set  before  them,  as  the  heavenly  call  in  Christ  Jesus 
bids  them,  and  consequently-  all  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  chosen 
children  of  God"  (p.  48). 

"The  Scriptures  declare  in  clear  distinct  words,  God  loved 
the  whole  world  (and  not  only  a  few  men)  and  gave  His  only 
begotten  Son  to  it,  John  3.  Also,  God  wants  all  (and  not  only 
a  few)  men  to  be  saved,  1  Tim.  2.  Also,  it  is  not  God's  will  that 
any  should  perish,  2  Peter  3.  But  here  we  must  be  careful  to 
note  that  God  does  not  absolutely  want  all  men  to  be  saved,  so 
that,  do  what  they  will,  they  shall  not  be  damned.  Who  then 
could  resist  His  will?  It  would  follow  then  that  all  men  would 
at  last  be  saved.  But  He  wants  us  to  conduct  ourselves  accord- 
ing to  the  order  prescribed.  He  who  fails  to  do  this  is  not 
saved,  and  God  has  not  chosen  him  unto  salvation." 

"Hence  we  must  understand  this  as  the  Scriptures  explain 
it:  God  gave  His  Son  to  the  whole  world.  Who  now  desires 
to  enjoy  Him  must  believe  in  Him.,  and  thus  will  not  perish,  but 
have  everlasting  life.  God  desires  that  all  men  may  receive  help. 
But  they  must  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth.  (1  Tim.  2.) 
God  does  not  desire  that  any  should  be  lost.  But  at  the  same 
time  He  wants  every  one  to  turn  to  repentance.  (2  Pet.  3.)  Who 
now  does  not  believe,  and  despises  the  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
and  likewise  does  not  repent,  is  of  a  truth  no  elect  child  of  God, 
but  is  lost  and  goes  to  the  devil;  but  the  cause  of  this  is  not 
that  a  secret  decree  of  God  is  to  blame,  preventing  him  from 
believing,  repenting,  and  being  converted;  on  the  contrary,  the 
blame  is  his  own,  because  he  did  not  conduct  himself  according 
to  the  order  which  God  established  for  him  as  well  as  for  others."* 


*  Note  how  Leyser  emphasizes  "the  order."  In  one  place  he  writes: 
"Some  are  so  hardened,  that  they  will  not  let  the  Holy  Ghost  operate  in 
them,  they  resist  Him,  reject  the  Word,  despise,  blaspheme,  persecute  it, 
yea,  harden  their  hearts  when  they  hear  it.  These  do  not  receive  the  grace 
of  God,  do  not  apply  to  themselves  the  decree  of  God  unto  life,  but  apply 


Polycarp  Lcyser.  31S 

"Therefore,  we  must  consider  God's  order,  according  to 
which  He  would  help  us  obtain  salvation;  and  he  who  would 
be  saved  must  follow  this  order.  But  that  all  may  know  what 
this  rule  and  order  of  God  is,  according  to  which  each  must 
walk  (Gal.  G)  and  direct  his  faith  and  life,  if  he  would  be  regarded 
as  an  elect  child  of  God,  our  Lord  Christ  has  finely  and  simply 
set  forth  this  order  in  one  of  His  parables.  It  has  been  Christ's 
manner  to  take  the  difficult  points  of  religion,  which  the  simple 
should  learn  and  remember  as  well  as  the  learned  and  highly 
gifted,  and  put  them  into  parables,  so  that  by  their  guidance  every 
one.  even  the  most  simple,  might  understand  and  remember, 
and  as  often  as  anything  of  such  parables  comes  up,  recall  the 
doctrine  taught.  Now  He  has  done  the  same  thing  with  this 
article  of  His  heavenly  Father's  predestination  unto  eternal  life, 
and  wants  even  the  most  highly  learned  to  come  down  to  such 
simplicity  and  abide  therein,  unless  they  wish  to  fall  from  the 
pure  doctrine  and  sink  into  error."* 

"In  this  way  our  Lord  Christ  sets  forth  the  order  of  pre- 
destination unto  life.  When  we  wish  to  take  up  this  subject, 
we  must  not  let  our  thoughts  flutter  out  into  wide  fields,  as  though 
God  had  absolutely  and  without  condition  predestinated  some 
unto  eternal  life,  and  some  certain  men  unto  eternal  danmation, 
and  as  though  this  would  have  to  remain  so  in  eternity,  and 
could  not  be  changed.  On  the  contrary  we  must  guide  our 
thoughts  as  follows:  1)  First,  since  God  in  eternity  foresaw  that 
the  human  race  would  fall  through  sin  into  death  and  destruc- 
tion, He  determined  that  He  would  have  mercy  upon  it,  renew 
His  friendship  with  it,  and  prepare  a  marriage  feast  for  His  Son. 
In  other  words,  He  determined  that  at  the  appointed  time  His 
Son  should  assume  human  nature,  and  that  in  this  way  He  would 
again  betroth  Himself  in  righteousness  and  in  judgment  and  in 
lovingkindness  and  in  mercies,  Hosea  2.  .  .  .  2)  In  the  second 


to  themselves  the  decree  unto  death,  and  exclude  themselves  by  their  own 
wilfulness  through  disobedience  from  predestination,  into  which  they  could 
have  come  through  faith.'  So  the  F.  C.  theologian  Leyser  teaches!  If 
now  it  is  no  synergism  for  the  non-elect  that  "through  faith  they  could 
have  come  into  predestination",  how  can  it  be  synergism  to  teach  of  the 
elect  that  through  faith  they  did  come  into  predestination?  ! 

*  And  yet  Dr.  Walther  could  write  in  his  notice  of  these  sermons 
("Lutheraner",  '80,  p.  80)  that  Leyser  "intentionally  did  not  go  deeply  into 
this  mysterious  doctrine"! 


314  Intuitu  Fidei. 

place,  however,  God  did  not  want  that  merely  the  flesh  and  blood 
existing  in  the  unity  of  the  person  of  the  Son  of  God  should  be 
saved,  but  that  His  Son  should  be  sacrificed  as  the  Lamb  of 
God  which  bears  the  sins  of  the  world  (John  1),  and  that  He 
should  atone  for  the  sins  not  merely  of  a  few,  but  of  the  whole 
world,  so  that  His  blood  might  be  the  propitiation  not  only  for 
our  sins,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  1  John  2.  .  .  . 
3)  And  God  did  not  stop  at  this ;  but  when  everything  was  ready, 
He  sent  His  servants  out,  and  extends  His  invitation  through 
the  doctrine  of  the  holy  Gospel,  and  calls  to  the  marriage  of  the 
Son  not  the  angels,  but  men,  and  that  without  respect  to  persons, 
not  the  rich  and  mighty  alone,  _but  also  the  poor  and  humble ; 
for  His  servants  must  go  out  upon  the  streets  and  compel  to 
come  in  to  the  marriage  feast  whomever  they  find,  the 
good,  and  the  bad.  For  God  wants  to  befriend  the  human  race 
and  unite  Himself  with  it,  that  it  may  become  flesh  of  Christ's 
flesh,  and  bone  of  His  bone,  so  that  He  may  not  hate  it,  but  love 
it,  and  nourish  and  cherish  it  as  His  own  body,  Eph.  5.  .  .  .  And 
that  all  the  world  might  note,  that  God  is  not  niggardly  with 
regard  to  the  salvation  prepared  by  His  Son,  He  sent  out  the 
messengers  of  His  mouth,  the  holy  apostles,  into  the  whole  wide 
world,  and  commanded  them  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every 
creature.  Matt.  28;  Mark  16.  Their  line  also  is  gone  out  through 
all  the  earth,  and  their  words  to  the  end  of  the  world,  Ps.  19, 
that  all  flesh  might  see  the  Savior  of  God  and  thus  be  called  to 
this  heavenly  marriage  feast.  Is.  40.  .  .  .  4)  Now  when  God  thus 
calls  men  to  the  marriage  and  the  kingdom  of  His  Son,  it  is 
His  will  that  we  come,  that  we  be  present,  that  we  eat  and  drink, 
i.  e.  that  we  hear  the  Word,  use  the  Sacraments,  and  thus  become 
partakers  of  the  Lord  Christ.  For  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments 
are  the  spiritual  vessels  in  which  the  heavenly  viands  and  drink 
of  this  spiritual  feast  are  offered,  that  the  inward  man  may  be 
preserved  unto  eternal  life.  And  God  seriously  desires  that  all 
men  may  come  tO'  the  marriage;  and  He  promises  that,  when 
we  follow  His  heavenly  call,  hear  the  Word,  and  use  the  Sacra- 
ments according  to  the  institution  of  the  Lord  Christ,  He  will 
operate  through  them  and  work  faith  in  us,  1  Thess.  5." 

"It  is  true  indeed  that  faith  is  not  for  every  man  at  his 
pleasure.  Flesh  and  blood  will  not  reveal  it  to  us,  if  our  heavenly 
Father  does  not,  Matt.  16.     For  the  natural  man  understandeth 


Polycarp  Leyser.  315 

not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God;  he  cannot  comprehend  them, 
1  Cor.  2.  The  heavenly  Father  must  draw  us,  if  we  are  to  come 
unto  the  Son,  John  6.  Yet  He  does  not  draw  us  by  the  hairs, 
or  by  force,  but  through  His  effective  Word.  For  faith  cometh 
by  hearing  the  divine  Word,  Rom.  10;  upon  which  hearing  God 
has  placed  His  blessing,-  that  just  as  the  rain  and  snow  do  not  fall 
from  heaven  in  vain,  but  moisten  the  earth,  and  make  it  fruitful 
that  it  gives  seed  to  sow  and  bread  to  eat,  so  also  His  Word  shall 
not  fail  of  its  fruit,  but  shall  accomplish  what  God  pleases,  and 
shall  prosper  in  the  thing  whereunto  it  is  sent.  Is.  55." 

"5)  Finally,  our  Lord  and  God  demands  that,  when  one 
once  has  come  into  the  house  of  the  heavenly  marriage,  he 
shall  remain  therein,  and  not  run  out  again,  and  also  be  clothed 
in  a  wedding  garment.  In  other  words,  he  shall  not  fall  from 
faith,  shall  not  turn  from  the  congregation  of  Christ  unto  the 
assembly  of  the  godless,  shall  also  show  his  faith  in  Christ  by 
doing  good  works,  shall  put  ofif  the  old  man  which  is  corrupt 
according  to  the  deceitful  lusts,  and  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of 
his  mind,  and  put  on  the  new  man  which  after  God  is  created 
in  righteousness  and  true  holiness,  Eph.  4." 

"This  is  the  order  in  which  God  has  comprehended  predes- 
tination, and  they  who  would  be  regarded  as  God's  elect  chil- 
dren must  follow  and  live  according  to  it  in  all  its  points  and 
clauses.  And  these  things  belong  together  in  God's  predestina- 
tion; they  dare  not  be  separated,  or  some  left  out,  but  must  be 
taken  altogether,  otherwise  the  doctrine  of  predestination  will 
not  be  complete.  And  these  parts  have  been  stated  and  ex- 
plained in  the  Christian  Book  of  Concord,  in  the  eleventh  article, 
concerning  the  election  and  predestination  of  God." 

"But  they  who  do  not  follow  this  order  of  God,  who  either 
will  not  acknowledge,  or  who  blaspheme  the  Son  of  God,  sent  as 
the  Savior  of  the  world,  who  persecute  His  servants,  will  not 
receive  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  but  despise  it,  will  not  come 
to  the  heavenly  marriage  feast,  will  not  use  the  Sacraments,  will 
not  put  ofif  the  old  serpent  skin,  but  wallow  in  all  lusts  and  sins, 
for  all  such  God  will  do  nothing  further,  they  do  not  belong 
to  those  predestinated  unto  life,  they  are  not  the  elect  of  God, 
but  Christ  here  declares  that  God  considers  them  His  enemies, 
that  He  will  not  only  destroy  them  eternally  as  murderers,  but 
will  also  destroy  and  burn  their  cities,  and  likewise  bind  the  hypo- 


316  Intuitu  Fidei. 

crites'  hands  and  feet  to  have  them  cast  out  into  outer  darkness,. 
And  God  has  determined  in  eternity  that  He  would  punish  with 
eternal  fire  such  godless  despisers  or  malicious  hypocrites,  just 
as  surely  as  He  has  surely  ordained  that  all  believers  in  Christ 
Jesus  shall  be  eternally  saved."  (Two  Christian  Sermons  on 
Eternal  Predestination.  Reprinted  at  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  1880,  p. 
12,  etc.) 

"In  the  Holy  Scriptures  the  Book  of  Life  is  extolled,  in  which 
the  names  of  all  those  are  recorded  whom  the  Father  in  heaven 
in  pure  mercy  chose  (delegit)  unto  eternal  life  for  Christ's  sake., 
for  whose  sake  alone  as  many  as  are  received  unto  eternal  salva- 
tion are  numbered  and  accepted  among  the  children  of  God. 
This  Book  of  Life  is  really  Christ  Jesus,  in  whom  He  has  chosen 
us  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  Eph.  1,  4.  As  many,  there- 
fore, as  are  in  Christ  have  their  names  recorded  in  heaven.  But 
the  question  is  when  and  how  this  was  done?  .  We  must,  there- 
fore, know  that  jn  a  two-fold  way  one  can  be  said  to  be  inscribed 
in  the  Book  of  Life.  Li  the  first  place  it  is  done  in  eternity 
according  to  the  eternal  predestination  and  election  of  God 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  The  foundation  of  God  stand- 
eth  sure,  having  this  seal :  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  His,. 
2  Tim.  2,  19.  In  the  second  place  this  inscribing  takes  place  in 
time  (temporaliter)  according  to  the  present  grace  of  God.  For 
when  Christians  yield  themselves  to  the  Lord  Christ,  are  baptized 
in  Him,  believe  in  Him  and  confess  their  faith  in  Him,  then  they 
obtain  through  Baptism  the  heavenly  right  of  citizenship  and  are 
inscribed  into  the  Book  of  Life  as  such  who  are  to  receive  salva- 
tion through  Christ,  if  they  persevere  in  faith  to  the  end  and  over- 
come, Rev.  3,  5.  This  Book,  therefore,  is  not  an  election  of  fate,, 
in  which  some  certain  persons  are  chosen  and  entered  through 
an  eternal,  immutable  secret  decree  of  God,  so  that  it  is  impos- 
sible for  their  names  to  be  erased  no  matter  what  their  sin,  or  other 
names  to  be  added  for  any  reason  whatever  in  this  Album.  Eor 
God  explicitly  declares,  Ex.  32,  33:  Whosoever  hath  sinned 
against  me,  him  will  I  blot  out  of  my  book.  Therefore,  as  those 
who  believe  and  are  baptized  are  inscribed  into  this  Book  through 
faith  in  Christ  and  through  His  righteousness,  so  also  the  wicked 
blot  themselves  out  of  this  Book  of  Life  by  falling  away  from 
faith  and  by  other  sins.  It  was  necessary  to  state  this,  so  that 
we  may  not  seek  our  salvation  outside  of  Christ's  merit  and  out- 


Solomon   Gesner.  317 

side  of  faith  embracing  this  merit,  in  a  certain  secret  fate,  and 
in  an  absolute  election  of  God,  but  that  we  may  follow  the  guid- 
ance of  God's  Word,  which  points  us  to  Christ,  and  wants  us  to 
hear  Him  in  the  M^ord,  embrace  Him  in  firm  faith,  and  cling  to 
Him  constantly  till  the  end.  They  who  thus  persevere,  and  work 
out  their  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling,  will  discover  when  at 
last  the  books  are  opened  that  their  names  will  be  read  from  the 
Book  of  Life  as  possessors  of  the  heavenly  inheritance.  They 
who  have  fallen  from  Christ  will  be  blotted  out  of  the  Book  of 
the  Living  and  will  not  be  inscribed  among  the  just,  Ps.  69,  29. 
But  they  are  blotted  out  and  removed  from  the  number  of  the 
elect,  not  according  to  a  certain  secret  and  absolute  decree,  but 
through  their  own  wickedness.  This  is  what  Jeremiah  vdeclares, 
17,  13:  All  that  forsake  thee  shall  be  ashamed,  and  they  that 
depart  from  me  shall  be  written  in  the  earth,  because  they  have 
forsaken  the  Lord,  the  fountain  of  living  waters.  Yet,  when 
such  deserters  are  blotted  from  the  Book  of  Life.  God's  eternal 
predestination  and  election  is  not  thwarted.  For  from  eternity 
He  foresees  and  foreknows  which  will  remain  constant  in  faith, 
and  which  will  fall  away.  And  as  He  permits  the  latter  to  go 
their  own  ways,  so  He  follows  the  former  with  especial  grace, 
care,  and  favor,  and  keeps  them  in  mind  just  as  though  their 
names  were  recorded  in  a  special  book.*  And  this  especial  care, 
this  beneficence,  and  this  mercy,  which  the  Father  in  heaven 
cherishes  toward  believers  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  and  which 
should  fill  us  with  joy,  our  Lord  Jesus  wished  to  indicate  by  using 
this  expression:  Your  names  are  written  in  heaven."  (Har- 
mon. Evang.  Cap.  104,  p.  1112.) 


SOLOMON  GESNER. 

Solomon  Gesner  (see  note  above)  writes  on  Ps.  47,  4 :  "The 
cause  of  election  is  by  no  means  to  be  sought  in  us,  as  though 
we  had  loved  God  and  deserved  by  our  faith  and  our  works  to  be 
elected.     The  one  cause  of  our  election  is  the  undeserved  love 


*  Here  it  appears  plainly  how  this  F.  C.  theologian  Leyser  understood 
the  expression  in  the  Confession  "in  Gnaden  bedacht".  ''remembered  in 
grace",  clementer  praescivit  (really:  foreknown  in  grace).  Not  certain 
sinners  as  such,  still  lying  with  the  rest  in  the  same  depravity,  but  only 
foreknown  believers  as  such  are  objects  of  "especial  grace,  care,  and  favor" 
in  predestination. 


318  Intuihi  Fidei. 

and  affection  of  God,  as  the  prophet  here  declares,  God  chose 
Israel  whom  He  loved.  As  also  God  Himself  declares,  Mai.  1: 
Jacob  have  I  loved,  and  Esau  have  I  hated;  and  Christ,  John  15: 
Ye  have  not  chosen  me;  and  the  apostle,  1  John  4,  10,  testifies 
the  same"  (Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  He 
loved  us,  and  sent  His  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins). 
"This  will  not  serve  to  establish  an  absolute  election  of  only  a 
few  men.  God  indeed  chose  us  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  when  nothing  of  our  works  was  present;  yet  He  chose  us 
in  Christ  as  embraced  by  faith,  Eph.  1.  For  through  faith  Christ 
dwells  in  our  hearts,  Eph.  3 ;  and  God  loves  no  man  so  as  to  pre- 
destinate him  unto  eternal  life,  if  Christ  is  not  embraced  by  true 
faith,  John  3;  Heb.  11;  Rom.  8."     (Comment,  in  Ps.  ad  1.  c.) 

On  the  words  of  Paul,  Rom.  9,  11:  The  children  being  not 
yet  born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose 
of  God  according  to  election  might  stand, — Gesner  writes  in  his 
Commentary  on  Gen.  25  (p.  508):  "The  apostle  by  no  means 
excludes  faith  from  the  decree  of  election,  nor  does  he  define  elec- 
tion as  the  absolute  favor  of  God  without  the  intervention  of 
Christ's  merit  embraced  by  faith;  this  appears  from  the  preceding 
eight  chapters  and  from  the  following  eleventh,  as  also  from 
Eph.  1  and  many  other  passages,  to  say  nothing  of  the  fact,  that 
no  one  is  predestinated  unto  eternal  salvation  in  a  different  way 
from  that  in  which  he  really  attains  it,  which  is  not  without  faith, 
John  3  and  6;  Mark  16.*  In  the  same  way  Paul  knows  nothing 
of  any  other  reprobation  but  that  of  non-believers,  as  he  declares 
explicitly  in  regard  to  the  reprobation  of  the  Jews  (Rom.  11),  they 
were  cut  out  through  their  unbelief,  Ezek.  18  and  33;  2  Peter  3. 
Where  then  do  these  words  belong,  you  ask:  'The  children  not 
having  done  any  good  or  evil'?  They  must  be  referred  to  the  fact, 
that  works  and  merits  are  excluded  from  the  act  of  justification 
and  election.  Yet,  since  faith  is  not  our  work,  but  God's  John  6 ; 
Phil.  1,  6;  2,  13,  and  since,  beside  this,  faith  is  not  regarded  in 
justification  and  election  as  a  work  of  ours,  but  only  as  an  in- 
strument for  embracing  Christ's  merit,  it  can  in  no  way  be  re- 
moved by  this  passage  of  Paul  which  only  excludes  actions  and 
works. "t 


*  In  the  passages  cited  and  in  "many  other  passages"  Gesner  finds  an 
election  in  view  of  Christ's  merit  "embraced  by  faith." 

t  Missouri,  however,  says  on  these  words:    "Neither  good  nor  bad": 


Solomon   Gesner.  319 

In  his  brief  dogmatics  (compendium  doctrinae  coelestis) 
Gesner  in  the  30th  article  treats  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination, 
following  like  Francisci  quite  closely  the  line  of  thought  in  the 
F,  C,  and  so  to  say  paraphrasing  the  eleventh  article,  in  the  form 
of  questions  and  answers.  The  F.  C.  takes  it  as  a  fundamental 
proposition  in  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  election,  that  God  did 
not  "hold  a  mere  review"  (without  regard  to  anything,  without 
a  rule)  and  pick  out  this  one  and  that  one,  but  that  He  regarded 
the  order  of  salvation  established  for  all  men,  and  in  exact  agree- 
ment with  its  every  word  chose  only  those  believing  in  Christ  as 
children  and  heirs.  Accordingly,  Gesner,  at  the  proper  place, 
puts  the  following  questions  and  gives  the  following  answers: 
"Did  our  election  take  place  through  an  absolute  and  naked  will 
of  God,  without  regard  to  any  cause  whatever,  or  did  it  take  place 
through  a  certain  qualified  (certo  determinatoque)  counsel  and 
decree  of  God? — Paul  writes,  Eph.  1,  4,  5,  9,  11,  that  we  are  chosen 
of  God  according  to  His  good  pleasure,  which  He  hath  purposed 
in  Himself,  and  that  we  are  predestinated  according  to  the  pur- 
pose of  Him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  His  own 
will.  From  this  it  follows*  that  God  did  not  by  an  absolute  and 
simple  (simplici)  will  choose  certain  persons  from  the  human 
race,  while  the  rest  are  damned  by  an  absolute  will,  but  that  He 
employed  (usum  esse)  a  qualified  (determinata,  really:  limited) 
counsel,  purpose,  and  decree  in  the  election  of  God's  children 
unto  eternal  salvation." 

"When  did  God  form  the  decree  and  counsel  of  our  election? 
—  In  the  same  passage,  Eph.  1,  1,  the  apostle  answers  that  God 
elected  us  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Election,  there- 
fore, did  not  take  place  in  time,  but  was  determined  by  God  from 
all  eternity,  and  preceded  all  our  merits,  as  we  are  told,  Rom.  9, 
11:     The  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  any 

"His  (Jacob's)  faith  especially,  which  he  manifested  in  all  his  actions,  the 
apostle  excludes  from  the  purpose,  which  God  formed  in  advance." 

*  Note  now  what  "follows"  from  this  according  to  Gesner;  for  ac- 
cording- to  Missouri  the  very  opposite  follows  in  regard  to  the  mystery 
of  election:  The  "good  pleasure"  and  the  "purpose"  are  to  apply  only  to 
certain  persons.  In  regard  to  reprobation,  however,  Missouri  wavers  like 
a  reed  shaken  hither  and  thither  by  the  wind.  At  one  time  they  confess 
most  decidedly  that  the  decree  of  reprobation  is  clearly  revealed  (He  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned);  at  another  they  go  "deeper"  also  in  this 
and  say,  God  could  have  saved  the  non-elect  "just  as  easily",  but  here  He 
is  "a  hidden  God." 


320  hitidtu  Fidei. 

good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election  might 
stand,  not  of  works,  but  of  Him  that  calleth." 

"If  election  took  place  from  eternity  in  God,  before  we  were 
created  and  had  done  anything  good,  how  then  was  it  ordained 
not  in  an  absolute  and  simple  will  of  God? — ^There  is  indeed  no 
cause  of  election  outside  of  God  in  the  creature  or  in  man  himself, 
as  Paul  declares,  Rom.  9,  11:  The  children  being  not  yet  born, 
neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil,  etc.  But  it  does  not  fol- 
low from  this  that  it  also  had  no  cause  in  God,  in  regard  to  which 
this  eternal  decree  of  predestination  was  qualified  and  issued 
(determinatum  et  factum  sit).  Hence  I  take  it  that  we  must 
distinguish  with  Damascenus  (lib.  1  orthod,  fid.  cap.,  29)  between 
the  antecedent  and  the  subsequent  wnW  of  God." 

"What  do  you  call  the  antecedent  will  of  God? — God's  will 
is  not  called  antecedent  and  subsequent  in  respect  to  time  or  to 
creatures;  for  in  this  respect  all  decrees  of  God  would  be  antece- 
dent, because  they  are  eternal.  God's  will  is  said  to  be  antecedent 
and  subsequent  in  respect  to  the  order  within  the  divine  mind. 
His  will  is  antecedent,  when  He  wills  a  thing  without  respect  to 
any  presupposed  cause;  viz.  when  He  wills  absolutely  to  create 
the  world,  to  create  man  in  His  image,  when  He  wills  that  man 
shall  live  eternally,  for  no  other  cause  than  ex  sese,  that  He  so 
wills,  and  from  boundless  goodness  alone." 

"What  is  the  subsequent  will? — When  God  wills  and  decrees 
a  thing  mediately,  according  to  a  certain  order,  inclusive  of  and 
qualified  by  certain  causes;  viz:  when  He  wills  that  fallen  men 
shall  be  saved  through  faith  in  Christ;  when  He  elects  us  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  but  in  Christ,  Eph.  1,  4;  when  He 
wills  to  confine  the  impenitent  by  temporal  and  eternal  punish- 
ments on  account  of  the  sins  in  which  they  persist." 

After  answering  two  questions  in  regard  to  God's  permitting 
will  with  respect  to  sin,  he  procedes:  Since  election  belongs  to 
God's  subsequent  will,  what  is  it  subsequent  to,  or  what  are  the 
causes  and  requisites  it  includes? — Paul  in  Rom.  8,  29,  summar- 
izes the  whole  order  of  eternal  election:  Whom  He  did  fore- 
k:now,  He  also  did  predestinate;  whom  He  did  predestinate,  them 
He  also  called;  whom  He  called,  them  He  also  justified;  whom  He 
justified,  them  He  also  glorified.  But  the  links  of  this  heavenly 
chain  may,  according  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  analogy  of  faith, 
be  divided  into  eight  steps  comprising  the  entire  wall  and  counsel 


Solomon  Gesner.  321 

of  God  concerning  the  eternal  predestination  and  salvation  of 
man."* 

Name  them! — 1)  From  eternity  God  determined  to  redeem 
fallen  man  through  the  Son  who  was  to  become  incarnate. — 2) 
It  pleased  God  to  offer  the  benefits  of  Christ  to  the  whole  human 
race  through  the  Word  and  Sacraments. f  - —  3)  He  determined 
through  the  preaching  and  the  hearing  of  the  Word  to  enkin- 
dle, increase,  and  preserve  faith  in  the  hearts  of  men. — 4)  It 
pleased  Him  to  justify  those  who  by  true  faith  accept  Christ. — 
5)  It  is  His  eternal  purpose  to  sanctify  those  in  true  love  who 
are  justified  through  faith. — 6)  He  has  determined  in  His  eternal 
counsel  that  He  will  protect  the  justified  in  their  manifold  weak- 
ness against  Satan's  machinations. — 7)  It  is  His  eternal  decree, 
to  strengthen  the  good  work  begun  in  them,  and  finally  to  com- 
plete it. — 8)  In  conclusion.  He  has  determined  to  save  those  who 
are  thus  called,  justified,  and  kept  by  Him  in  faithfulness  unto  the 
end.     Rom.  8,  30;  1  Tim.  4,  18." 

"If  election  includes  the  vocation,  justification,  preservation, 
and  glorification  of  believers  which  takes  place  in  time,  how  can 
election  itself  be  eternal? — A  distinction  must  be  made  between 
the  decree  of  predestination  and  its  execution.  The  decree  itself 
God  from  eternity  formed  in  Himself  according  to  the  series  (ea 
serie)  just  quoted  from  the  revealed  Word;  its  execution  follows 
in  time.  Therefore,  although  we  are  regenerated  and  justified 
and  received  into  eternal  salvation  through  faith  in  Christ  in  time, 
all  these  things  were  included  in  God's  counsel  from  eternity,  that 
in  time  they  might  be  realized. "| 


*  Note  now  the  "eight  steps"  (gradiis)  into  which  Gesner,  following 
the  F.  C,  "divides"  (resolvit)  the  eternal  predestination  of  man,  whether 
they  contain  anything  but  the  universal  counsel  of  God. 

t  The  second  point  among  the  eight  of  the  F.  C.,  which  Gesner  here 
enumerates  as  the  eight  links  in  the  chain  of  predestination,  does  not,  as 
he  explicitly  states,  refer  only  to  the  elect,  as  Missouri  misinterprets  the 
F.  C,  but  to  the  whole  human  race  and  to  the  universal  call. 

X  Mark  two  things  here:  1)  Gesner  here  also  speaks  explicitly  of  the 
election  of  "believers"  as  such,  and  "includes"  vocation,  justification,  pre- 
servation, and  glorification  in  this  election;  2)  and  he  explains  this  by 
saying  that  the  decree  of  thei'-  election  is  the  sum  of  all  this  "according 
to  the  series"  he  had  adduced  from  the  revealed  Word  in  the  preceding 
question  —  consequently,  in,  with,  and  under  the  universal  counsel  of 
salvation  and  its  "eight  steps"  from  redemption  on  up  to  glorification. 
Just  as  also  the  F.  C.  declares:    "That  in  the  way  just  stated  He  would 


322  Intuitu  Fidei. 

The  questions  that  follow  now  treat  of  the  universal  will  of 
grace,  of  universal  redemption  and  vocation.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  the  very  first  question  again  contains  the  antithesis:  "Does 
God  earnestly  will  to  save  all  men,  none  excepted,  or  did  He  by 
an  unconditional  decree  choose  from  the  promiscuous  human 
race  some  certain  persons  whom  He  will  save?"  According  to 
Missouri  the  answer  would  have  to  be:  Both  is  true,  according 
as  you  speak  on  the  one  hand  of  the  universal  will  of  grace,  and 
on  the  other  of  predestination,  which  "pertains  only  to  some  cer- 
tain persons"  and  hovers  as'a  mystery  only  over  those,  in  short, 
constitutes  a  second,  mysterious,  particular  will  of  grace.  Gesner 
now  quotes  a  large  number  of  passages  treating  of  God's  universal 
mercy,  and  then  declares:  "These  testimonies  show  that  God 
by  no  means  chose  certain  persons  from  the  human  race,  but 
desires  to  have  all  men  saved  without  a  single  exception."  He, 
therefore,  has  no  use  for  predestination  as  a  second  will  of  grace 
respecting  sinners  in  the  same  depravity,  from  the  start  applying 
only  to  some  certain  persons,  and  constituting  for  these  from  the 
start  a  decree  for  their  salvation  without  foregoing  regard  to  faith. 

Gesner  afterwards  continues:  "If  God  wants  to  save  all 
men,  and  if  Christ  also  rendered  satisfaction  for  the  sinners  of 
the  whole  world,  does  this  not  show  that  God  too  chose  all  men 
unto  eternal  life  whether  they  believe  or  not? — This  does  not  fol- 
low at  all.  On  the  contrary,  (a)  since  justification,  which  takes 
place  through  faith,  is  included  in  the  decree  of  eternal  predesti- 
nation (for  whom  He  did  predestinate,  them  He  also  justified, 
Rom.  8,  30),  and  since  faith  is  not  every  man's  possession,  2  Thess. 
3,  2,  therefore  God  did  not  choose  all  men  without  distinction, 
whether  they  believed  or  not,  but  it  pleased  God  by  the  fooHshness 
of  preaching  to  save  those  that  believe,  1  Cor.  1,  21.     And  besides. 


bring  them  thereto."  What  the  F.  C.  men  at  Wittenberg  and  Tuebingen 
meant  by  speaking  of  election  as  a  "cause  of  our  salvation",  which  "pro- 
cures, helps,  and  promotes  what  pertains  thereto",  they  themselves  have 
told  us  clearly  and  explicitly.  Those  of  Tuebingen  say:  "In  what  way 
election  is  called  a  cause  of  our  salvation  the  Book  of  Concord  states  in 
the  following  words"  —  viz.:  "that  the  entire  doctrine  concerning  the  pur- 
pose, counsel,  will,  and  ordination  of  God  pertaining  to  our  redemption, 
call,  righteousness,  and  salvation  should  be  taken  together."  Those  of 
Wittenberg  (among  them  Gesner)  say,  faith  is  a  result  of  predestination 
just  "as  Christ's  suffering  is  a  subsequent  work  originating  in  the  predes- 
tination and  ordination  of  God's  children.  For  if  God  had  formed  no  pre- 
destination, the  suffering  of  God's  Son  would  never  have  occurred." 


Solomon  Gesner.  323 

(b)  since  we  are  chosen  in  Christ,  Eph.  1,  4,  and  since  no  one  is  in 
Christ  except  he  be  planted  in  Him  through  faith,  John  15,  7; 
Eph.  3,  15;  Rom.  6,  3;  Gal.  3,  27,  therefore  no  man  is  chosen  in 
Christ  without  faith.  And  finally,  (c)  since  it  is  impossible  to 
please  God  without  faith,  Heb.  11,  6,  it  is  certain  that  God  does 
not  love  those  who  are  destitute  of  faith,  so  as  to  elect  them  unto 
eternal  life."* 

"Is  there  then  a  certain  number  of  the  elect  and  of  those  who 
are  to  receive  salvation? — The  expression  'a  certain  number'  can 
be  taken  in  a  twofold  sense :  either  absolutely  as  referring  to  cer- 
tain persons,  or  conditionally  as  referring  to  believers.  Speak- 
ing absolutely,  we  dare  not  claim  a  certain  number  of  elect,  as 
though  God  had  chosen  certain  persons  without  any  regard  what- 
ever to  faith  by  His  mere  unconditional  will,  and  as  though  He 
had  limited  this  number  by  a  sort  of  fate  that  it  cannot  be  increased 
or  decreased,  as  when  from  among  100  sheep  10,  no  more  and 
no  less,  are  absolutely  separated.  The  universal  and  merciful  will 
of  God  toward  the  whole  human  race  is  opposedf  to  this.  Fur- 
thermore, the"  universal  "merit  of  Christ  and  the  call  and  invita- 
tion of  all  men  is  opposed  to  it.  And  finally,  we  find  this  contra- 
dicted by  the  fact,  that  the  number  of  the  elect  might  have  been 
increased,  if  those  who  are  damned  because  of  their  unbelief  had 
repented,  as  Christ  asserts  of  the  Tyrians,  the  Sidonians,  and  the 
Sodomites  (Matt.  11,  21;  Luke  10,  13),  and  Paul  of  the  unbeliev- 
ing Jews  (Rom.  11,  23).  And  yet  God  from  all  eternity  knows 
surely  how  great  the  number  of  believers  is,  and  who  and  how 
many  belong  to  the  mass  of  the  elect;  as  the  Scriptures  clearly 
state,  2  Tim.  2,  19:  The  foundation  of  God  standeth  sure,  hav- 
ing this  seal,  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  His.  John  10,  14; 
Ps.  16." 


*  Poor  Gesner!  And  so  you  too  bring  up  such  (according  to  Mis- 
souri's wisdom)  "rationalizing"  reasons  to  make  the  mystery  of  election 
"plausible  to  reason"  by  the  explanation  of  faith  in  Christ?  Where  in  all 
these  Scripture  passages  is  there  a  single  word  concerning  the  elective 
decree  regarding  the  bestowal  of  salvation?  My  dear  Gesner,  take  a 
course  of  instruction  under  Pieper  and  Stoeckhardt! 

t  Well,  well,  Gesner!  Don't  be  a  "rationalist"!  Must  you,  a  man  of 
the  F.  C.  Church,  be  taught  by  one  like  Prof  Pieper,  that  God's  gracious 
will  toward  fallen  man  is  twofold,  and  that  He  therefore  wills  both :  1)  to 
save  all  (hence  also  to  decree  their  salvation,  that  is  if  they  believe  in 
Christ);  and  yet  2)  to  elect  in  reality  only  a  few  unto  salvation  and  there- 
fore also  unto  all  means  (also  unto  faith)  without  regard  to  their  conduct?  ! 


324  Intuitu  Fidei. 

"God,  however,  loved  us  while  we  were  yet  His  enemies- 
(Rom.  5,  10),  hence  He  elected  us  without  regard  (intuitu)  ta 
faith? — This  is  indeed  true  of  God's  universal  love  wherewith  He 
loved  the  whole  world  so  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son, 
John  3,  16.  But  apart  from  this  universal  love  it  is  a  special 
lo\'-e  wherewith  He  embraces  His  dear  children  and  believers  and 
loves  them  in  Christ  as  apprehended  by  faith;  as  Paul  adds  in 
the  same  place  (Rom.  5,  9)  that  God  loves  much  more  those  who 
are  justified  by  faith,  and  as  he  declares,  Eph.  1,  7:  He  hath  made 
us  accepted  in  the  Beloved,  in  whom  we  have  redemption  through 
His  blood,  i.  e.  the  forgiveness  of  sins.     So  also  we  read,  John 

3,  16:  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten 
Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  life.     John  6,  40;  John  3,  36." 

"Prove  by  clear  reasons  that  faith  is  required  in  election. — 
There  are  two  regular  proof-passages  (ordinariae  sedes)  for  this 
doctrine  of  predestination:  Rom.  8  and  Eph.  1.  In  both  places 
faith  is  required.  For  Paul  declares,  Eph.  1,  that  God  chose  the 
saints  and  faithful  at  Ephesus  and  blessed  them  with  all  spiritual 
blessings.  But  as  the  faithful  are  not  without  faith,  so  also  the 
saints  or  those  who  are  blessed,  for  Christ  embraced  by  faith  is 
cur  sanctification,  1  Cor.  1,  and  they  which  be  of  faith  are  blessed 
with  faithful  Abraham,  Gal.  3,  9.  In  the  same  way  Paul  .states 
clearly,  Rom.  8,  30,  God  predestinated  those  whom  He  justified; 
but  there  is  no  justification  outside  of  faith  in  Christ,  Rom.  3,  22; 

4,  5.  In  addition  we  are  told,  2  Thess.  2,  13,  that  God  chose  you 
in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  in  belief  of  the  truth.  In  Tit. 
1,1,  the  elect  are  called  such  according  to  their  faith." 

"Did  God  elect  us  for  the  sake  of  faith? — As  we  are  not  jus- 
tified and  saved  for  the  sake  of  the  worthiness  of  faith,  although 
we  do  not  receive  righteousness  and  eternal  life  except  through 
faith,  Heb.  11,  6;  John  3,  30,  so  also  we  are  not  elected  for  the 
sake  of  or  on  account  of  faith.  For  although  faith  is  included  in 
the  decree  of  election,  it  is  not  a  meritorious  cause  of  election, 
but  only  an  instrumental  cause,  embracing  the  grace  offered  in 
Christ.  As,  therefore,  righteousness  is  imputed  to  faith,  Rom. 
4,  5,  so  also  in  election  salvation  is  imputed  to  faith  and  given 
gratis." 

"Since  Paul,  Eph.  1,  4,  declares  that  God  chose  us  that  we 
should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before  Him,  it  follows  that  elec- 


Solomo7i  Gesner.  325 

tion  is  a  cause  of  our  faith  and  of  our  holiness,  and  that  therefore 
iaith  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  cause  of  election,  but  it  must  be  said 
to  follow  election?  —  Faith  is  not  at  all  a  meritorious  cause,  for 
the  sake  of  the  worthiness  of  which  we  are  chosen  of  God,  1  John 
4,  10;  John  15,  16;  for  who  hath  first  given  unto  God,  that  it 
should  be  recompensed  unto  him  again?  Rom.  11,  35.  Yet 
faith  is  the  instrument  which  embraces  Christ,  and  is  in  this  re- 
spect included  in  the  eternal  decree  of  election.  But  when  God 
carries  out  and  realizes  (in  actum  deducit)  the  counsel  formed  in 
eternity,  then  this  decree  is  an  ei^cient  cause  of  faith  in  us.  For 
whom  He  did  predestinate,  them  He  also  called,  Rom.  8,  30."* 

"But  since  faith  is  in  time,  not  in  eternity,  how  can  it  be 
included  in  the  eternal  decree  of  God? —  It  is  for  this  reason  that 
Paul  combines,  Rom.  9,  29,  foreknowledge  and  election:  Whom 
He  did  foreknow,  them  He  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed 
to  the  image  of  His  Son.  For  since  everything  future  is  present 
to  God,  the  faith  of  the  children  of  God  covdd  not  be  unknown 
to  Him  from  eternity.  God  knows  His  own  with  an  eternal 
and  perfect  knowledge,  Ps.  139;  2  Tim.  2,  19;  John  1,  48;  Ps. 
1,  6;  1  Cor.  4,  7.  Nor  did  He  ordain  any  one  unto  the  inherit- 
ance of  heavenly  gifts  by  blind  guess-work,  and  without  knowing 
what  He  did,  but  by  His  most  allwise  and  allholy  counsel."' 

In  his  treatises  on  the  Formula  of  Concord,  1595,f  Gesner 
writes:  "Election  is  an  efficient  cause  of  faith  in  so  far  as  it 
includes  the  gracious  will  of  God,  the  merit  of  Christ,  the  voca- 
tion and  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  On  the  other  hand, 
in  so  far  as  it  includes  faith  in  Christ,  renewal,  and  perseverance, 
it  is  not  the  cause  of  faith,  but  rather  a  decree  composed  of 
the  sum  and  inseparable  union  of  several  causes"  (p.  502). 

"Accordingly,  the  causes  which  precede  the  elective  decree, 
not  indeed  in  time,  but  according  to  the  order,  are:    1)  the  fore- 


*  For  whom  He  did  foreknow  as  coming  unto  faith  through  His  uni- 
versal grace,  concerning  them  He  determines  that  He  will  give  them  faith 
"in  this  way."     Hence  foreknowledge  is  so  important  here. 

t  We  are  not  ourselves  in  possession  of  this  work,  so  we  quote  the 
following  testimonies  of  Gesner  from  the  translation  of  Dr.  S.  Fritschel 
in  his  article  "Dogmengeschichtliches  ueber  die  Lehre  vom  Verhaeltnis 
des  Glaubens  zur  Gnadenwahl"  (Dogmatico-Historical  Matter  on  the  Doc- 
trine concerning  the  Relation  of  Faith  to  Election)  in  "Kirchliche  Zeit- 
schrift",  1880,  p.  135.  This  applies  also  to  the  testimonies  from  Mam- 
phrasius. 


326  Intuitu  Fidei. 

knowledge  of  our  misery;  2)  the  merit  of  Christ;  3)  The  appro- 
priation of  this  merit  through  faith"  (p.  616). 

"The  decree  of  predestination  and  election  is,  as  far  as  the 
order  of  causes  is  concerned,  not  the  first  and  foremost,*  nor 
does  it  precede  with  God  in  the  order  of  causes  all  other  causes; 
on  the  contrary  it  presupposes  as  its  basis:  1)  the  creation  of 
man;  2)  man's  fall  and  misery;  3)  Christ's  merit;  and  4)  faith 
in  Christ"  (p.  624). 

"I  therefore  readily  admit  that  election  precedes  our  sanc- 
tification  as  its  cause,  when  we  premise  election  as  having  taken 
place  in  eternity,  and  make  the  temporal  execution  of  the  eternal 
decree  to  follow  it"  (p.  629). 

"But  when  the  apostle  declares,  Eph.  1,  that  we  are  chosen 
in  Christ,  God  must  have  had  both  before  His  eyes  when  He 
chose  us:  our  misery,  causing  us  to  need  a  Redeemer,  and  faith 
by  which  we  would  embrace  Christ's  merit.f  In  this  sense  our 
sanctification  (reference  is  had  to  that  imputed  to  us)  would  not 
follow  election,  but  would  be  comprehended  in  it  and  subordi- 
nated to  it"  (innexa  et  subjuncta,  really:  closely  united  to  and 
joined  with). 


*  As  Missouri  declares  ah^eady  in  the  Report  of  '77:  "It  is  self-evident 
that  this"  (the  election  of  certain  persons  unto  salvation)  "must  be  so  tO' 
saj'  the  oldest,  first  and  foremost  blessing.  For  even  the  Son  of  God  be- 
came man  in  time  and  redeemed  us  in  time.  Likewise  we  are  called  in 
time"  etc.  (p.  25). 

t  Missouri,  however,  is  bound  to  exclude  faith  from  the  "in  Christ" 
(Eph.  1,  4),  and  thereby  exhibits  clearly  a  deviation  in  principle  not  only 
from  the  F.  C.  men  at  the  time  of  the  F.  C,  but  also  from  the  Book  of 
Concord  itself,  which  explicitly  explains  "election  in  Christ"  by  saying 
that  the  Father  "determined  that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those  who 
acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  in  Him."  Epit.  §  12. 
Prof.  Stoeckhardt  for  instance  writes:  "Does  this"  (in  Christ)  "mean  that 
we  are  chosen  in  Christ?  Many  dogmaticians  of  the  17th  century  take  it 
in  this  sense,  and  thereby  support  their  assertion  that  God  chose  with 
regard  to  foreseen  faith."  (Stoeckhardt  says  nothing  about  the  F.  C. 
theologians  of  the  16th  century  intending  to  make  it  appear  as  though 
only  "many  dogmaticians  of  the  17th  century"  held  this  view!)  And  Dr. 
Walther  himself  writes:  "It  is  indeed  written:  'According  as  He  hath  chosen 
us  through  Him',  or,  to  take  the  original  text,  en  auto,  'in  Him'  (Eph.  1,  4); 
but  where  is  it  written:  'According  as  He  hath  chosen  us  as  being  in  Him'? 
and  who  dares  to  foist  these  words  of  his  own  upon  the  Holy  Ghost?  and 
thus  'put  Him  to  school',  as  though  He  did  not  know  how  to  express  what 
He  wanted  to  reveal?"  (What  our  Lutheran  fathers  are  said  to  have 
done  over  against  the  Calvinists!     To  be  sure,  when  Dr.  Walther  writes- 


Wolfgang  Mamphrasius .  327 

WOLFGANG   MAMPHRASIUS. 

Wolfg-ang  Mamphrasius*  writes:  "It  is  erroneous  to  sup- 
pose that  faith  depends  on  election  as  the  effect  upon  its  cause, 
and  that  election  does  not  depend  on  faith;  for  it  is  true  to  say 
both.  For  only  those  who  believe,  that  is  believe  till  the  end, 
are  elect,  and  only  the  elect  have  such  faith.  But  election  does 
not  depend  on  faith  as  its  moving  or  its  meritorious  cause,  but 
as  its  instrumental  cause.  We  are  chosen  not  for  the  sake  of 
faith,  but  through  faith,  or  rather  through  Christ  and  for  the 
sake  of  Christ  as  He  is  appropriated  by  faith.  On  the  other 
hand,  faith  depends  on  election  in  a  double  way:  1)  When 
we  look  at  God's  eternal  counsel  and  decree  concerning  electionf 
we  find  faith  included  as  an  important  element;  1)  When  we 
look  at  eternal  predestination  with  respect  to  its  execution  which 
takes  place  afterwards  in  time,  then  indeed  predestination  is  the 
first  and  efficient  cause  of  faith,  and  faith  depends  on  eternal 
election  as  the  effect  upon  its  cause."$  (Erotemata  in  F.  C, 
1601,  p.  458.     Quoted  in  Kirchl.  Zeitschrift,"  1880,  p.  136.) 


in  many  instances:  "Paul  meant  tc  say"  etc.,  it  is  again  "an  entirely  dif- 
ferent thing"!)  When  Missouri,  moreover,  declares  "in  Christ",  taken 
strictly,  is  equivalent  to  "for  the  sake  of  Christ",  even  this  (if  one  does 
not  agree  with  Winer,  who  says:  "With  names  of  persons  'en'  is  never 
taken  in  the  sense  of  'for  the  sake  of  ")  decides  nothing  for  Missoviri.  We 
all  agree  that  the  elect  are  not  chosen  for  their  own  sakes  or  for  the  sake 
of  their  own  merit  and  worthiness,  but  only  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  But 
the  question  is:  Did  God  for  the  sake  of  the  unknown,  unappropriated 
Christ  elect  and  ordain  a  few  sinners  unto  salvation  and  unto  eternal  life? 
or  for  the  sake  of  the  Mediator  as  embraced  and  accepted  by  faith?  Here 
is  the  parting  of  the  roads  between  the  evangelical  Lutheran  and  the  Mis- 
sourian  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election.  And  just  on  this  point  the  re- 
vealed Gospel  has  a  strong  word  to  say,  John  3,  16. 

*  Born  1557;  in  1592  co-author  of  the  Saxon  Articles  of  Visitation 
(together  with  Hunnius,  Mylius,  Mirus,  and  Loner);  "he  attended,  on 
account  of  the  Crypto-Calvinists,  general  and  special  visitations  in  Saxony 
and  Silesia"  (Joecher);  died  1616.  It  is  not  impossible  that  he  was  one 
of  the  first  signers  of  the  F.  C,  although  we  cannot  ascertain  anything 
about  it.  He  is  at  least  one  of  the  original  defenders  and  apologetes  of  the 
F.  C,  and  a  witness  to  the  faith  regarding  predestination  then  actually 
living  in  the  Lutheran  Church. 

t  Which  counsel  ordains  all  the  causes  and  means  of  salvation. 

X  Mamphrasius  here  states  the  only  two  possibilities  according  to 
which  the  two  so-called  doctrinal  types  concerning  the  relation  between 
election  and  faith  can  be  harmonized  without  detriment  to  evangelical 
doctrine.     The    solution    is    the    one    we    have    recommended    for    years: 


328  Intuitu  Fidei. 


JOHN  PAPPUS. 

John  Pappus:*  "Predestination,  really  so  called,  is  the  eternal 
decree  of  God  revealed  in  the  Gospel  to  call,  justify,  and  glorify 
all  those  who  would  believe  in  the  Mediator  Christ  (Credituris) 


"elected  unto  salvation  according  to  foreseen  faith,  and  in  so  far  also  unto 
actual  faith."  God,  to  speak  in  a  human  way,  foresaw  which  of  the  re- 
deemed and  called  there  would  be  to  be  saved  through  persevering  faith, 
and  beholding  them  determined  to  carry  out  in  reality  the  counsel  of  sal- 
vation as  comprehended  in  the  eight  points  of  the  F.  C.  By  this  deter- 
mination of  God,  embracing  the  foresight  of  the  eventual  outcome,  only 
persevering  believers  are  actually  firmly  elected  and  ordained  both  unto 
salvation  and  unto  all  means  for  its  attainment,  inasmuch  as  God  decrees 
and  "ordains  that  He  will  really  bring  them"  (on  the  universal  way  of  sal- 
vation "through  His  grace,  gifts,  and  operation",  as  these  are  open  for  all) 
"unto  salvation."  In  this  way  foreknowledge  remains  "the  first  step  in 
the  acts  of  God  for  the  glorifying  of  His  own",  inasmuch  as  He  foresaw, 
"qui  essent  salvandi",  which  would  be  savable. 

*  Born  1549;  since  1570  professor  at  Strassburg;  received  the  degree 
of  Dr.  in  1672  at  Tuebingen  imder  Jacob  Andreas;  died  1610.  For  eleven 
years  he  held  a  professorship  beside  John  Marbach,  who  "disputed  at 
Wittenberg  under  the  presidency  of  Lutheri  and  received  the  gradum 
doctoris  theologiae"  (Joecher),  and  had  been  a  house  and  table  com- 
panion of  Luther  at  Wittenberg  (De  Wette,  Luther's  Letters,  5,343,  where 
his  testimonial  from  the  faculty  is  given  in  full).  Marbach  and 
Pappus  both  labored  assiduously  for  the  adoption  of  the  F.  C. 
in  Strassburg,  whereas  J.  Sturm,  who  was  inclined  toward  Cal- 
vinism, opposed  it  with  all  his  strength,  and  succeeded  in  influencing 
the  magistracy  to  such  an  extent  that  they  declined  the  adoption.  An- 
drese  accordingly  wrote  to  Marbach:  "What  is  the  reason  that  your  senate 
hesitates  to  further  and  confirm  the  godly  and  holy  concord  of  our  Church? 
For  I  cannot  conceive  that  you  would  refuse  subscription;  I  do  not  in  the 
least  doubt  your  hearty  agreement."  Plank  (II,  646)  reports:  "Those  of 
Zuerich  by  a  special  letter  to  the  magistracy  of  Strassburg  effected  that 
the  latter  declined  to  subscribe  the  Formula.  The  theologians  and  preach- 
ers wanted  to  subscribe  it  on  their  own  account"  (as  Hunnius  and  Arcu- 
larius  had  done  in  Marburg),  "and  this  caused  the  contentions  between 
the  two  parties  which  existed  in  the  city  already  before  this,  to  break  out 
in  quarrels,  the  fiery  J.  Pappus  on  the  side  of  the  orthodox,  and  the  Rector 
of  the  University,  J.  Sturm,  on  the  other  side  playing  the  chief  parts." 
Hutter's  Concordia  Concors  likewise  furnishes  ample  proof  for  the  fact 
that  Marbach  and  Pappus  were  true  F.  C.  men,  who  were  prevented  only 
by  circumstances  from  ofificially  signing  the  Formula.  Already  in  1578 
Pappus  issued  a  writing  in  defense  of  the  F.  C.  on  account  of  its  rejection 
of  Calvinism;  and  in  1580  and  1581  Pappus  and  Sturm  exchanged  several 
polemics  on  the  F.  C.  In  1591  Pappus  published  his  "Chief  Articles  of 
Christian  Doctrine"  according  to  the  Augsb.  Conf.  and  the  F.  C. 


Andrew  Schaafmann.  329 

and  would  persevere  (perseveraturis)  in  true  faith  to  the  end, 
that  they  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before  Him  in  love, 
to  the  praise  of  His  glorious  grace."     (Disp.  de  Prged.  th.  58.*) 


ANDREW   SCHAAFMANN. 

Andrew  Schaafmann :t  "We  have  hitherto  shown  that  Christ 
and  His  merit  is  a  cause  of  our  election,  and  that  therefore  our 
election  does  not  depend  on  the  absolute  and  simple  pleasure 
of  God.  Now  another  point  is  raised,  whether,  since  Christ  ben- 
efits no  one  without  faith,  regard  to  faith  also  constitutes  a  part 
of  our  election.  On  this  point  Piscator  explicitly  takes  the  con- 
trary side.  Likewise  Tossanus,  on  Pelagianism,  th.  156.  157, 
Beza  in  his  second  Respons.  ad  Montisbel.  p.  233,  the  Heidel- 
bergers  in  the  'Golden  Ladder,'  Peter  Martyr  on  Rom.  9.  Oth- 
ers, however,  hold  the  affirmative  and  prove  by  the  strongest 
arguments  that  faith  dare  not  be  excluded  from  election  or  pre- 
destination. The  papists  mix  in  among  these  arguments  faith 
as  a  quality  and  future  works,  or  the  foreseen  good  use  of  free 


*  It  must  be  noted  that  Pappus  does  not  say,  with  Calvin  and  Missouri, 
God  chose  (a)  unto  salvation  by  His  secret  purpose  "some  certain  persons" 
from  among  the  mass  of  sinners  foreseen  as  lying  without  a  difference  all 
in  the  same  depravity  and  resistance;  and  {b)  that  for  this  reason  God  also 
determined  in  time  to  call,  justify,  and  glorify  these  sinners  in  Adam 
ordained  unto  salvation  according  to  His  free  pleasure.  No;  the  foreseen 
Credituri  and  Perseveraturi  as  such  —  i.  e.  inasmuch  as  God  from  eternity 
foresaw  which  of  the  called  would  through  His  grace  come  to  faith  and 
persevere  in  faith  —  God  chose  and  ordained  to  this  that  He  would  bring 
them  safely  unto  salvation  by  virtue  and  in  the  manner  of  the  universal 
order  of  salvation  (which  they  do  not  wilfully  despise  like  the  rest).  This 
"first  doctrinal  type",  to  be  sure,  agrees  beautifully  with  the  Scriptures 
(Rom.  8,  29.  30.),  with  the  Book  of  Concord  (Declar.  §  23)  —  and  with  the 
"second  doctrinal  type."  Huelsemann's  well-known  definition  (adopted 
by  Scherzer  and  Rechenberg)  is,  for  instance,  rather  a  definition  of  election 
according  to  this  first  tpye  of  doctrme  than  according  to  the  second.  If 
Missouri  would  only  hold  to  this  orthodox  first  type,  it  could  not  attack 
as  it  does  the  Intuitu  Fidei,  and  sweep  out  so  completely  the  foresight  of 
faith. 

t  According  to  Joecher  he  was  stationed  at  Dortmund  (Tremonia)  in 
Westphalia  at  about  1590;  he  wrote  two  works  in  1596  against  the  re- 
nowned Calvinist  John  Piscator,  the  one  on  the  cause  of  sin,  the  other  on 
predestination.  He  was  personally  acquainted  with  Hunnius  and  other 
Wittenbergers. 


330  hihdtu  Fidei. 

will,  in  such  a  way  that  they  assert  God  was  moved  thereby  in 
the  act  of  predestination  to  choose  these  and  no  others.  The 
Lutherans,  however,  maintain  in  substance  and  in  words  that 
God  found  nothing  in  man,  neither  good  works,  nor  the  good 
use  of  free  will,  yea  not  even  faith  itself,  that  thereby  He  should 
have  been  moved  to  choose  or  predestinate  any  one;  on  the 
contrary,  Christ's  merit  is  exclusively  the  ransom  and  price  whose 
worthiness  moved  God  to  elect  and  predestinate  us.  But  since 
Christ's  merit  benefits  no  one  without  faith,  our  theologians  main- 
tain and  teach  that  Christ  embraced  or  to  be  embraced  according 
to  His  merit  is  the  cause  of  election,  and  that  therefore  this  uni- 
versal merit  as  far  as  its  fruit  is  concerned  is  limited  by  the  con- 
dition of  faith  only  to  believers.  Whether  now  this  regard  to 
faith  or  this  foreseen  faith  is  termed  a  condition  of  election,  or 
a  qualification,  or  a  cause  (i.  e.  as  in  justification),  our  theologians 
care  little  to  dispute,  if  only  faith  is  not  excluded  from  the  act 
of  election.  And  if  the  question  is  raised,  how  faith  which  exists 
only  in  time  can  be  either  a  cause  or  a  qualification  of  eternal 
election,  they  answer,  that  election  unto  life  took  place  accord- 
ing to  foreknowledge,  and  that  therefore  it  is  not  absurd  to 
choose  something  future  in  predestination." 

"Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.  Heb.  11. 
Yet  the  elect  please  God;  for  if  they  did  not  please  God,  this 
great  blessing  would  not  be  bestowed  upon  them  by  God.  Con- 
sequently, they  please  God  through  faith." 

"If  the  purpose  of  the  divine  will  regarding  the  salvation 
of  men  includes  Christ  and  faith,  then  election  and  predestina- 
tion also  include  the  two.  The  reason  is,  because  election  took 
place  according  to  this  purpose,  Rom.  8,  28;  Eph.  1,  11.  But 
now  it  is  a  truth  that  the  'purpose'  also  included  Christ  and  faith. 
John  6,  40:  This  is  the  will*  of  the  Father,  that  whosoever  seeth 
the  Son  and  believeth  on  Him  should  have  everlasting  life.  Cf. 
Eph.  1,  9.  Consequently,  election  and  predestination  also  include 
faith." 

"If  Christ  in  view  of  His  merit  is  the  cause  of  our  election. 
He  is  such  either  absolutelv  or  relativelv,  inasmuch  as   He  is 


*  Missouri,  of  course,  will  raise  its  hands  in  horror  and  exclaim: 
"What  terrible  confusion!  John  6,  40  speaks  only  of  the  will  of  God  and 
contains  no  syllable  about  the  purpose!  These  things  are  as  different  as 
heaven  and  earth!  Beside  the  universal  will  of  grace  there  stands  without 
mediation  the  particular  purpose  of  grace"! 


Philip  Nicolai.  331 

embraced  by  faith  and  imputed  to  man.  .  .  .  But  Christ  in  view 
of  His  merit  is  not  absolutely  and  unconditionally  the  cause  of 
our  election.  Several  reasons  are  added  for  the  sake  of  those 
who  indeed  include  Christ  m  election,  but  tear  out  faith.  The 
first  reason  is,  it  would  follow  that  Christ  benefits  us  nothing 
without  faith.  The  second  is,  it  would  follow  that  all  those  are 
elected  for  whom  Christ  obtained  His  merit  through  His  death, 
which  would  be  absurd;  or  at  least  this  would  follow  that  every 
single  person  is  sufficiently  elected  (sufficienter),  as  is  beheved 
(by  the  Reformed),  Christ  died  sufficiently  for  all.  .  .  .  Since  Christ 
is  not  simply  (simpliciter)  the  cause  of  election.  He  will  be 
a  cause  with  respect  to  faith.  And  consequently  faith  dare  not 
be  altogether  excluded  from  the  act  of  election.  Outside  of  Christ 
no  one  is  elected.  This  Paul  teaches  Eph.  1,  4.  Sinful  men,  how- 
ever, without  the  consideration  of  faith,  are  outside  of  Christ,  for 
which  reason  also  they  are  not  chosen  without  considering  faith." 
(De  Praedest.  p.  249  sqq.) 

PHILIP  NICOLAI. 

Philip  Nicolai*  writes:  "Just  as  eternal,  almighty  God  was 
stirred  by  the  first  light  or  foreknowledge  of  our  miserable  woe, 
in  boundless  mercy,  unto  gracious  love  of  the  whole  human  race, 
so  also  the  second  light  or  the  foreknowledge  of  faith  and  unbelief 
moved  Him  to  the  decree  of  equity  (called  Vcluntatem  conse- 
quentumj  subsequent  will)  regarding  all  children  of  men,  de- 
creeing and  determining  in  His  eternal  counsel  what  would  be 
and  what  shall  be  the  final  end  of  each  and  every  one." 

"This  decree  is,  that  all  shall  be  saved  who  obediently  follow 
the  counsel  of  the  Almighty  and  the  ordained  means  of  salva- 
tion by  diligent  hearing  of  the  calling  Word  and  use  of  the 
precious  Sacraments,  and  thereby  permit  themselves  to  be  en- 
lightened, regenerated,  and  guided  to  the  end  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 


*  Born  1556;  in  1576  pastor  at  Mengeringhausen  in  the  territory  of 
Waldeck,  afterwards  at  Unna  in  Westphalia,  and  since  1601  at  Hamburg, 
where  he  died  in  1608.  He  is  known  as  the  author  of  a  number  of  our 
most  beautiful  hymns:  "Wachet  auf!"  —  "Wie  schoen  leucht't."  A  zeal- 
ous friend  of  the  F.  C,  which,  however,  as  in  adjacent  Hessia,  was  not 
officially  adopted,  aUhough  "at  the  Synod  of  Mengeringhausen,  A.  1593,. 
we  unanimously  acknowledged  and  confessed  the  Christian  Book  of  Con- 
cord" (Nicolai).  His  chief  work  is  the  incomparable  "Freudenspiegel 
des  ewigen  Lebens"  (Mirror  of  Delight  of  Eternal  Life). 


332  hituitu  Fidei. 

But  they  who  despise  the  ordained  means,  lose  them  and  remain 
in  their  sins  and  unbelief  till  death,  abide  under  God's  wrath, 
and  eternal  damnation  comes  upon  them." 

"As  the  clear  passages  of  Scripture  testify:  God  sent  not  His 
Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world 
through  Him  might  be  saved.  He  that  believeth  on  Him  is  not 
condemned;  but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already, 
because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten 
Son  of  God,  John  3.  I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world,  that 
whosoever  believeth  on  me  should  not  abide  in  darkness.  And 
if  any  man  hear  my  words  and  believe  not,  I  judge  him  not;  for 
I  came  not  to  judge  the  world,  but  to  save  the  world.  He  that 
rejecteth  me,  and  receiveth  not  my  words,  hath  one  that  judgeth 
him;  the  word  that  I  have  spoken,  the  same  shall  judge  him  in 
the  last  day,  John  12.  The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given 
all  things  into  His  hand.  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath 
everlasting  life;  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see 
life;    but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him,  John  3." 

"From  this  counsel  and  Voluntate  Consequente  flows  Prse- 
destinatio  or  election  unto  eternal  life,  and  also  the  decree  of 
reprobation,  which  we  must  treat  by  itself." 

"Predestination,  the  ordination  and  election  unto  eternal  life, 
is  an  especial  decree  of  grace  and  an  eternal  resolution,  wliereb/ 
God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  by  His  infallible  eternal 
foreknowledge,  predestined  and  ordained  unto  heavenly  joy  and 
eternal  certain  salvation  all  those  who,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world  till  the  present  moment,  were  called  through  the  estab- 
lished means  of  grace,  justified  in  Christ,  and  finally  glorified; 
as  also  all  those  who  to-day  and  until  the  final  judgment,  shall 
likewise  be  called  of  God,  justified,  and  glorified;  that  they  all 
shall  be  and  remain  to  all  eternity  co-heirs  of  Christ  and  of  His 
unspeakable  treasures  of  delight,  and  partakers  of  the  heavenly 
glory,  eternal  pleasure,  eternal  honor,  and  eternal  salvation,  and 
that  therefore  also,  when  crosses  and  affliction  come  upon  them 
here,  all  things  shall  work  together  for  their  good." 

"This  description  is  taken  from  the  following  words  of  St. 
Paul:  We  know  that  all  things  work  together  for  good  to  them 
that  love  God,  to  them  who  are  the  called  according  to  His 
purpose.  For  whom  He  did  foreknow.  He  also  did  predesti- 
nate to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son,  that  He  might 
be  the  firstborn  among  many  brethren.     Moreover,  whom   He 


Philip  Nicolai.  333 

did  predestinate,  them  He  also  called;  and  whom  He  called, 
them  He  also  justified;  and  whom  He  justified,  them  He  also 
glorified,  Rom.  8,  28-30." 

"In  these  words  predestination  unto  salvation  is  understood 
to  extend,  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  by  virtue  of  divine 
foreknowledge,  over  all  those  who  in  time  are  called,  justified, 
and  glorified;  i.  e.  over  those  who  constantly  follow  God's  uni- 
versal will  of  grace,  counsel  of  grace,  and  ordination  of  grace 
in  Christ;  abide  by  the  established  means  of  salvation;  are  called 
by  the  Gospel;  are  brought  to  repentance  and  awakened  to  faith 
by  the  gracious  antecedent  and  subsequent  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  through  diligent  hearing  and  consideration  of  the  blessed 
divine  Word,  as  also  through  the  use  of  the  precious  Sacraments 
and  through  the  cross  that  is  added;  are  strengthened  and  kept 
that  they  embrace  the  righteousness  of  the  Gospel  in  the  blood 
of  Christ,  resist  the  old  Adam,  fight  a  good  fight,  keep  the  faith 
and  a  good  conscience,  remain  patient  beneath  the  cross,  and 
faithful  to  the  Savior  Jesus  Christ  through  the  power  of  God 
unto  death." 

"For  this  reason  everything  in  this  mystery  that  God  does 
and  from  eternity  determined  to  do  is  altogether  a  work  of  grace. 
With  our  attendance  at  church,  hearing  of  sermons,  partaking 
of  the  Holy  Supper,  faith,  hope,  new  obedience  and  good  works 
we  do  not  earn  eternal  predestination.  Since  faith,  hope,  new 
obedience,  patience,  etc.,  and  also  the  blessed  hearing  and  fruit- 
ful consideration  of  the  Gospel,  flow,  without  any  merit  or  worthi- 
ness of  ours,  from  the  pure  fatherly  mercy  of  God  and  the  gra- 
cious operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  are  all  a  pure  gift  of  the 
Almighty,  and  not  at  all  dependent  on  our  fleshly  willing  or 
running,  but  on  God's  compassion.  For  what  hast  thou  (says 
the  apostle)  that  thou  didst  not  receive?  Now  if  thou  didst 
receive  it,  why  dost  thou  glory,  as  if  thou  hadst  not  received  it? 
1  Cor.  4." 

"In  mercy  God  elected  us  and  established  predestination 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world  not  simply"  (i.  e.  absolutely 
and  unconditionally,  without  regard  to  anything),  "but  through 
Christ,  Eph.  1,  4.  But  what  is  Christ  for  us  children  of  men 
but  a  gift  of  grace  and  a  present  of  grace  from  the  pure  grace 
and  love  of  God?  John  3,  16.  Even  when  God  in  predestina- 
tion looked  upon  the  blessed  call,  justification,  and  glorification, 
my  friend,  what  did  He  behold  there  but  His  own  work  of  grace 


334  Intuitu  Fidei. 

whereby  the  elect  are  saved?  Not  because  of  the  merit  of  works, 
but  because  of  grace  He  calls,  Rom.  9.  By  His  grace,  without 
merit,  we  are  justified,  Rom.  3;  by  grace  we  are  saved,  Eph.  2; 
faith  also  wherewith  salvation  is  embraced  is  a  work  of  God's 
grace,  John  6;  and  suffering  for  Christ's  sake  is  also  a  gift  of 
God,  Phil.  1." 

"Although  everything  in  this  work  of  grace  is  wholly  a  work 
of  grace,  and  we  with  our  natural  willing  and  running  earn 
nothing  toward  our  salvation,  Rom.  9,  nevertheless  God  requires 
of  us  the  outward  obedience  which  still  lies  in  our  power  and 
ability,  viz:  attendance  at  church,  diligent  hearing  of  the  Word, 
Rom.  10,  searching  of  the  Scriptures,  John  5,  39,  reading  and 
meditating,  Acts  8  and  17,  etc.  And  this  God  requires  accord- 
ing to  His  universal  counsel  and  will  of  grace;  not  as  a  merit 
on  our  part,  as  though  we  by  our  own  powers  should  or  could 
prepare  ourselves  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  earn  the  ever- 
lasting treasure;  but  as  an  ordained  means,  through  which  He 
intends  to  operate,  give  the  Holy  Spirit,  produce,  strengthen, 
and  preserve  repentance  and  true  faith,  and  enkindle  new  mo- 
tions in  us,  Rom.  10,  Acts  10  and  16." 

"From  this  it  follows  irrevocably  and  incontrovertibly  that, 
if  all  the  world  would  obey  God  and  would  yield  to  His  eternal 
gracious  counsel,  gracious  purpose,  gracious  order,  and  gracious 
determination  as  regards  Christ,  if  none  were  to  run  counter  to 
the  revealed  Word,  if  all  were  to  submit  themselves  humbly  to 
it  by  diligent  hearing,  reading,  and  meditation,  and  were  to 
follow  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  till  death,  then  Jesus  Christ, 
who  is  presented  as  a  Savior  to  all  the  world  and  ordained  for 
all  nations,  would  draw  them  all  to  Himself  by  the  power  and 
grace  of  His  Holy  Spirit,  would  most  gladly  give  faith  to  all, 
and  bestow  eternal  life  upon  all;  so  that  on  account  of  their 
foreknown  saving  vocation,  Christian  justification,  and  blessed 
glorification  not  only  the  eternal  gracious  will,  gracious  counsel, 
gracious  instruction,  gracious  purpose,  gracious  determination, 
and  gracious  order  as  regards  Christ,  but  also  predestination, 
that  is  the  gracious  election  or  choice  unto  eternal  life,  would 
have  extended  to  them  all  from  eternity."  (Nicolai's  Works, 
Vol.  3,  p.  315,  etc.) 

"Especial  note  must  here  be  taken  of  the  distinction  between 
the  antecedent  gracious  love  which  extends  over  all  the  world, 


Philip  Nicolai.  335 

and  the  subsequent  gracious  election  which  embraces  only  the 
believing  children  of  God." 

"The  gracious  love  of  God,  which  belongs  to  His  ante- 
cedent will,  is  meant  seriously  on  the  part  of  God,  inasmuch  as 
He  presents  His  dear  Son  to  all  the  world  as  its  salvation  and 
throne  of  grace,  and  directs  all  the  children  of  Adam,  without 
a  single  exception,  to  Him  alone,  that  they  all  may  accept  His 
Word,  all  may  be  converted  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  all 
be  filled  with  true,  saving  faith,  and  governed  and  guided  accord- 
ingly, so  that  they  all  may  turn  from  their  sins,  all  trust  the 
Gospel,  all  put  their  hope  in  Christ,  all  seek  their  salvation 
with  fear  and  trembling,  all  walk  in  love,  patience,  and  new 
obedience,  and  all  adhere  to  Christ  constantly  till  death." 

"O  praise  the  Lord  (David  sings),  all  ye  nations,  praise 
Him,  all  ye  people,  both  young  men  and  maidens,  old  men  and 
children;  let  them  praise  the  name  of  the  Lord,  Ps.  117  and  148. 
It  is  God's  desire  and  earnest  will  that  all,  all  men  shall  praise 
Him.  And  if  this  praise  is  to  flow  from  faith  and  the  prompting 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  then  assuredly  He  must  ofifer  the  grace  of 
faith  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  together  with  complete  salvation, 
to  all  the  children  of  men,  and  it  must  be  his  heartfelt  intention 
to  grant  these  blessings  through  the  ordained  means  to  all,  yea 
to  all,  so  that  in  all  the  wide  world  not  a  single  man  is  excluded 
from  this  gracious  love,  from  this  gracious  counsel,  gracious 
will,  and  gracious  offer  of  salvation." 

"Predestination,  however,  regards  only  those  who  follow  the 
universal  counsel  of  grace  and  permJt  themselves  to  be  drawn 
unto  salvation  by  the  universal  ordained  means  and  governed 
by  them  till  death.  This  is  not  done  by  the  whole  world,  although 
God  would  most  heartily  desire  to  see  it,  but  only  by  some,  and 
as  compared  with  the  whole  human  race  only  by  a  few;  for 
the  greater  part  despises  the  universal  counsel  of  God  and  resists 
His  fatherly  will  till  death.  There  is  no  doubt,  therefore,  that 
God  knows  His  own,  and  has  known  from  eternity  the  little 
flock  of  those  who  keep  to  the  Gospel,  Baptism,  and  the  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Altar,  and  permit  themselves  to  be  fully  regenerated 
unto  eternal  life  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  that  He  has  decreed 
and  determined  to  save  them  through  the  ordained  means,  which 
particular  decree  the  Scriptures  designate  by  the  term  Prgedes- 
tinatio  or  Electio,  that  is  foreordination  or  election  unto  eternal 
life."     (Ibid.  p.  319.) 


336  Intuitu  Fidei. 

JOHN  HABERMANN  (AVENARIUS). 

John  Habermann*  preaches  in  his  Postill  (of  the  year  1578) 
on  the  words,  "Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen,"  as  follows: 
"This  passage  closes  Christ's  parable,  and  this  is  His  simple 
meaning.  Many  people  are  called  of  God  to  labor  in  His  vine- 
yard, but  few  are  chosen  to  receive  a  good  rich  reward.  For 
that  many  people  are  called  and  accepted  as  laborers  is  wholly 
God's  grace  and  mercy,  who  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved 
and  none  excluded  from  His  kingdom.  Therefore  He  bids  us, 
Matt.  11:  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  are  weary  and  heavy  laden^ 
and  I  will  give  you  rest.  But  that  only  a  few  come  and  are 
chosen  to  receive  a  great  reward  is  man's  own  fault,  since  the 
greater  part  are  hypocrites  and  false  Christians,  who  do  not  labor 
diligently,  are  not  earnestly  concerned  about  preaching,  have 
neither  faith  nor  love  in  their  hearts,  for  they  do  not  approve 
themselves  servants  of  God  in  great  patience,  in  tribulation,  in 
necessities,  in  fears,  etc.  Hence  this  passage  does  not  mean  to 
say  that  God  desires  to  choose  only  a  few  people  from  among 
the  many  that  are  called,  and  wishes  to  reject  and  make  non- 
elect  some  that  come  and  labor  diligently  in  His  vineyard.f  On 
the  contrary,  God  calls  all,  and  those  whom  He  calls  He  also- 
justifies,  that  is  chooses,  in  so  far  as  they  permit  themselves  tO' 
be  called  by  the  grace  of  God  and  chosen  unto  righteousness.. 
But  those  who  Vv'ill  not  He  lets  go,  because  they  prefer  to  walk- 
in  darkness  rather  than  in  the  light.  If  now  a  man  desires  to 
know  whether  he  is  chosen,  he  need  not  climb  into  heaven, 
nor  enter  the  heavenly  council-chamber  and  trouble  his  mind 
about  the  secret  providence  of  God;  all  he  needs  to  do  is  to 
judge  and  decide  according  to  the  revealed  Word  and  will  of 
God.  To  state  it  briefly:  See  and  know  whether  you  are  sorry 
for  your  sins,  and  whether  in  your  sorrow  you  have  a  heartfelt 
trust  and  confidence  in  Christ,  and  finally  whether  you  bring 
forth  good  fruits  from  faith.     He  who  does  this,  or  begins  to 

*  Born  1516;  he  was  pastor  at  different  places,  professor  of  theology 
at  Jena  and  Wittenberg,  and  finally  Superintendent  in  Saxony,  when  he 
signed  the  F.  C.  He  died  in  1590.  He  is  known  best  by  his  pithy  little 
prayer-book  which  is  still  used  extensively. 

t  As  Missouri  teaches  in  reality,  when  it  declares  that  God,  in  His  free 
predestination,  which  according  to  His  secret  purpose  pertains  only  to  a 
few,  "does  not  even  inquire  whether  we  have  obeyed  or  not,  but  simply 
does  as  He  wills." 


John  Habermaiin  {Avenarms).  337 

do  it,  is  most  assuredly  chosen  and  a  child  of  eternal  life.*     Next 
week  we  will  hear  more  of  this." 

The  following  sermon  for  the  Sunday  Sexagesima  on  the 
parable  concerning  the  dififerent  kinds  of  soil  begins  with  the 
words:  "To-day  a  week  ago  we  heard  in  the  conclusion  of  the 
gospel-lesson  the  general  declaration:  Many  are  called,  but  few 
are  chosen.  The  cause  why  many  are  called,  and  again  the 
fault  why  but  few  are  chosen  our  present  parable  sets  forth 
clearly  and  distinctly;!  it  follows  so  closely  upon  the  other  for 
the  very  reason  that  one  gospel  may  be  the  interpretation  and 
explanation  of  the  other.  For  it  shows  that  a  man  went  out 
to  sow  the  good  seed  in  his  field  everywhere,  and  yet  the  field 
does  not  yield  fruit  everywhere;  this  is  not  the  fault  of  the  man 
who  went  out  to  sow,  or  of  the  good  seed,  but  of  the  field.  So 
we  must  know:  It  is  not  the  fault  of  God  who  chooses  that  few 
are  chosen,  nor  of  the  Word  through  which  they  are  chosen, 
but  of  man's  own  will  and  wickedness,  who  through  Satan's 
hindering  will  not  be  chosen,  preferring  to  follow  the  devil  and 
his  deception  unto  evil.  God  indeed  could  use  force,  but  He 
will  drag  no  man  by  the  hairs  into  heaven;  on  the  contrary, 
He  draws  those  who  permit  themselves  to  be  drawn  by  His  Word 
and  Spirit,  and  do  not  resist  Him."| 

*  Habermann,  as  he  declares  in  the  beginning,  speaks  here  of  the  jus- 
tified and  the  elect  as  being  the  same,  as  also  Luther  already,  and  many- 
others  after  him,  distinguish  between  those  who  "are"  the  elect,  and  those 
who  "remain"  the  elect. 

t  Well,  well,  my  dear  old  Habermann!  So  you  are  also  attempting 
to  "solve"  and  "make  plausible  to  reason"  this  "mystery  regarding  certain 
persons"  and  their  election  unto  salvation,  by  referring  to  the  dififerent 
hearers  of  the  Word  of  God  and  the  different  conduct  of  men  toward  the 
gracious  call  of  God?  I  Missouri  will  soon  enough  "sweep  out"  your 
"gross  synergism"  and  rationalism. 

X  Poor  Habermann!  In  your  best  years  you  passed  through  the  en- 
tire controversy  concerning  synergism  and  Flacianism,  you  even  held  a 
professorship  at  Jena  and  at  Wittenberg,  and  but  a  year  ago  (157T),  hold- 
ing the  office  of  Superintendent,  you  signed  the  F.  C.  (the  second  as  well 
as  the  eleventh  article),  and  now  in  spite  of  all  this  —  as  Missouri  wilt 
soon  impress  upon  you  —  you  come  with  such  grossly  synergistic  twaddle. 
Away  with  this  F.  C.  synergist  from  the  bosom  of  the  Lutheran  Church! 
He  openly  makes  man's  conversion  and  salvation  dependent  upon  his  own 
work  and  merit,  upon  his  "permitting  himself  to  be  drawn"!  But,  all 
joking  aside,  who  is  really  blind?  All  these  men  of  the  F.  C?  Or  St. 
Louis  in  its  haughtiness  and  obduracy? 


338  Intuitu  Fidei. 


MATTHIAS  HAFENREFFER. 

Matthias  Hafenreffer*  writes  in  his  renowned  Compend: 
"What  is  predestination?  It  is  the  eternal  will,  counsel,  and 
pleasure  of  God  to  save  man  through  Christ  embraced  by  faith, — 
How  is  this  will  of  God  divided?  Into  the  antecedent  and  sub- 
sequent will;  or,  which  is  the  same,  into  the  universal  and  the 
particular  will.  For  although  God's  will  in  its  essence  is  a  single 
and  simple  will,  it  is  revealed  in  the  Word  so  as  to  show  not  only 
what  it  intends  in  general  regarding  all  men,  but  also  what  it  has 
determined  in  particular  regarding  those  who  either  obey  the 
universal  counsel,  or  resist  it." 

After  treating  of  the  antecedent  will  and  its  universality, 
Hafenreffer  continues:  "What  is  the  subsequent  or  particular 
will  of  God?  It  is  the  eternal  counsel  or  decree  of  God  to  save 
those  who  believe,  and  to  damn  those  who  do  not  believe. — How 
does  this  subsequent  or  particular  will  differ  from  the  antecedent 
will  of  God?  1)  The  antecedent  will  has  no  contrary  decree  of 
reprobation;  but  the  subsequent  will  is  divided  by  different  de- 

*  Born  1561;  Magister  in  1581;  counsellor  of  the  consistory  and  court- 
preacher  at  Tuebingen  in  1590;  Doctor  of  Theology  and  extraordinary 
professor  in  1592;  died  in  1619.  With  Heerbrand,  Osiander,  Gerlach, 
and  others  he  took  part  in  the  controversy  of  the  Wuertembergers  with 
Huber,  as  his  signature  in  several  of  the  documents  shows.  A  number  of 
the  writings  of  the  Wuertembergers  against  the  Calvinists  were  composed 
by  him  in  the  name  of  the  rest.  His  chief  work  is  the  Loci  Theologici, 
published  for  the  first  time  in  1600,  then  passing  through  many  editions 
(Tuebingen  1603,  1606;  Luebeck  1608,  Wittenberg  1609,  etc.  In  Sweden 
especially,  as  also  in  Denmark,  the  book  was  "introduced  and  regarded 
as  a  symbolical  book"  in  the  schools,  or,  as  Val.  Andrese  expresses  it: 
Cynosura  Orthodoxiae,  the  Guiding  Star  of  Orthodoxy).  Huelsemann 
writes  in  his  "Calixtine  Worm  of  Conscience",  p.  119:  "In  the  excellent 
kingdom  of  Sweden  the  Loci  communes  D.  Matthiae  Hafenrefiferi,  pro- 
fessor of  theology  at  Tuebingen,  were  introduced  already  in  1612  by  a 
public  order  of  the  king,  to  be  used  for  the  lectures  in  the  Univeisity  at 
Upsala  and  in  other  Colleges,  to  be  read,  and  the  coming  clergy  to  become 
accustomed  to;  they  were  there  reprinted,  a  Compend  or  Extract  was 
made  and  published  for  particular  schools  by  the  Archbishop  Peter 
Kenicus"  (who  was  active  in  introducing  the  F.  C.  in  Sweden,  in  1593) 
.  .  .  .  "and  public  lectures  on  Hafenrefifer's  Loci  continue  in  the  excel- 
lent University  Upsala  to  the  present  day."  John  Sebastian  Lysandcr^  a 
zealous  destroyer  of  Lutheran  writings,  came  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth 
through  a  Slavonian  translation  of  Hafenrefifer's  Loci.  The  Wuertem- 
berg  princess  Anna  Johanna  translated  the  book  into  German.  It  is  said 
to  have  been  translated  also  into  Danish. 


Matthias  Hafenreffer .  339 

crees,  one  concerning  those  to  be  saved,  and  one  concerning 
those  to  be  damned.  2)  The  antecedent  will  embraces  in  gen- 
eral all  men  and  offers  salvation  to  all,  that  they  may  believe  and 
be  saved;  the  subsequent  will,  however,  takes  cognizance  of  man's 
obedience  or  disobedience,  inasmuch  as  they  believe  the  universal 
counsel  of  God,  or  resisting  it  disbelieve.  3)  The  antecedent  will 
has  reference  to  this  one  thing  only,  that  men  may  be  rescued 
from  their  misery  through  faith  in  Christ;  the  subsequent  will 
ordains  those  who  believe  unto  salvation,  those  who  do  not  be- 
lieve unto  damnation. — Prove  this  subsequent  will  for  me  and 
the  difference  of  the  decrees  from  the  Scriptures!  Mark  16,  16; 
John  1,  12;  John  3,  18;  1  Cor.  1,  21.*— What  then  is  the  predesti- 
nation of  God's  children?  It  is  the  will,  counsel,  or  pleasure,  and 
purpose  of  God  whereby  He  resolved  from  eternity,  in  mere 
grace  and  mercy,  through  and  for  the  sake  of  Christ  to  save  those 
who  believe.f  —  But  whence  arises  this  particularity  of  the  sub- 
sequent will?  The  cause  of  this  particularity  does  not  originate 
in  God,  who  earnestly,  constantly,  and  with  burning  heart  de- 
sires that  all  men  may  believe  and  be  saved  through  faith  in  Christ ; 
the  fault  lies  in  men  themselves,  who  do  not  obey  and  do  not 
believe  the  beneficent  and  universal  pleasure  of  God.  For  lack 
of  faith  alone  is  the  cause  of  particularity  and  of  condemnation. — 
If  lack  of  faith  is  the  cause  of  particularity,  it  still  seems  as  though 
this  is  due  not  to  men,  but  to  God,  since  faith  is  not  in  man's 
power,  but  a  gift  of  God!$     Faith  cometh  by  the  hearing  of  the 


*  These  passages  simply  declare  that  he  who  believes  shall  be  saved, 
yet  according  to  Hafenreffer  they  all  treat  of  the  decree  which  assures  sal- 
vation to  all  foreseen  individual  believers.  But  according  to  Missouri 
there  is  no  such  decree;  for  the  election  of  persons  without  faith  has  al- 
ready decided  the  matter. 

t  In  our  copy  the  word  "those  who  believe"  is  very  strongly  empha- 
cised  —  "CREDENTES."  It  is  plain  that  Hafenreffer  meant  especially 
to  emphasize  over  against  the  election  of  some  or  of  all  sinners  without 
faith,  as  then  taught  by  Calvinists  and  Huberians  (and  now  by  Missouri), 
the  election  of  "God's  children",  the  election  "in  mere  grace,  for  the  sake 
of  Christ",  as  confessed  in  the  F.  C.  and  pertaining  only  to  believers  in 
Christ  as  such,  and  therefore  taking  place  in  view  of  their  faith. 

X  What  would  the  answer  to  this  question  have  to  be,  if  Hafenreffer 
were  a  Missourian?  Would  he  not  have  referred  to  the  "free  (free  in  the 
Missourian  sense,  i.  e.  asking  nothing,  unconditional)  grace"  of  God  and 
the  "mystery  hovering  only  over  a  few";  and  would  he  not  have  said:  "No 
man  has  a  right  to  question  God  on  this  point!  He  indeed  could  just  as 
easily  convert  all  as  He  converts  the  elect,  but  He  here  upholds  His  right 


340  Inhdtu  Fidei. 

Word,  Rom.  10,  17.  For  this  reason  faith  is  not  in  man's  power,, 
since  all  do  not  hear  the  Word,  and  since  those  who  do  hear,  for 
many  reasons  by  their  own  fault  prevent  the  divine  seed  from 
bringing-  its  fruit  in  them;  as  Christ  teaches  in  the  parable"  (con- 
cerning the  different  soil).  Matt.  13.  4.  For  it  is  certain  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  wills  to  operate  in  all  who  hear  the  Word  and  to 
grant  them  faith  and  conversion ;  but  many  resist  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  either  despise  the  means,  or  hinder  them,  or  fall  away  again. — 
Is  it  not  Calvinistic  to  teach  a  particularity  in  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion?* The  particularity  of  Calvinism  is  as  different  from  ours 
as  is  heaven  and  earth.  For  the  Calvinists  ascribe  the  first  cause 
of  particularity  to  God  Himself,  who,  as  they  say,  rejected  with- 
out regard  to  unbelief,  by  His  unconditional  pleasure,  the  ma- 
jority of  men,  yea  and  created  them  for  damnation.  But  we  as- 
cribe all  the  cause  of  this  particularity  to  man's  guilt  and  unbe- 
lief.f  —  What  now  is  a  brief  summary  of  all  you  have  stated  re- 
specting the  antecedent  and  the  subsequent  will?  It  is  this:  The 
allmerciful  God  has  indeed  had  compassion  on  the  whole  human 
race,  and  has  formed  the  most  gracious  determination  to  save  all 
without  exception  through  faith  in  Christ.  But  since  many  by 
their  own  fault  and  disobedience  are  such  as  do  not  believe  (non 
credituri  erant),  God  has  resolved  in  the  same  way  from  eternity, 
on  the  one  hand,  to  give  salvation  to  those  who  believe,  on  the 
other  hand,  to  condemn  those  who  do  not  believe. — But  does 
not  the  particularity  of  the  subsequent  will  abolish  the  univers- 
ality of  the  antecedent  will?     By  no  means!     For  these  are  not 


to  do  as  He  wills,  without  asking  whether  we  have  obeyed  or  not."  — 
What  poor  Missourians  all  these  men  of  the  F.  C.  were! 

*  This  was  Ruber's  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  the  election  of  believers 
as  such,  which  he  rejected,  refusing  to  admit  any  particular  decree  of  elec- 
tion. But  together  with  the  theologians  of  the  F.  C.  we  hold  fast  to  this 
ele<:tion  of  believers,  which  Huber  at  first,  and  now  Missouri  (although  for 
different  reasons),  has  branded  so  shamefully  as  being  heretical.  Still  Dr. 
Walther  finds  it  possible,  we  are  sorry  to  say  it,  to  commit  this  piece  of 
godlessness:  he  puts  us  and  Huber  together,  and  then  himself,  his  ad- 
herents, and  the  Wuertembergers  etc.,  as  brethren  in  the  faith! 

t  It  is  impossible  for  Missouri  to  confess  this  heartily,  as  long  as  it 
holds  fast  the  fundamental  proposition  in  regard  to  election  and  reproba- 
tion, that  God  "could  remove  the  resistance"  of  all  men  "just  as  easily  as 
He  removes  that  of  the  elect",  but  that  "on  the  other  hand"  (i.  e.  in  con- 
tradistinction to  the  universal  will  of  grace)  "He  here  upholds  His  right 
(1)  to  have  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  and  (2)  to  harden  whom 
He  will  harden."     This  is  pure  Calvinism! 


Matthias  Hafe^ireffer,  341 

■contradictory,  they  are  subordinate  wills.  God  wills  that  all  men 
may  believe  and  be  saved  through  faith.  But  since  many  through 
their  own  fault  do  not  believe,  they  are  for  this  reason  condemned 
by  the  subsequent  will;  those,  however,  who  believe  are  saved."* 

In  speaking  of  the  contrary  doctrine,  Hafenrefifer  mentions 
Huber  as  "expelling  faith  from  the  act  of  eternal  election,  and 
dreaming  that  the  act  of  election  is  complete  in  these  two  things, 
God's  merciful  will  and  Christ's  merit.  And  by  thus  asserting 
that  election  is  absolute  in  Christ,  he  (Huber)  so  places  the  uni- 
versal will  of  God  in  opposition  to  the  particular  decree  as  to 
make  it  appear  that  the  two  involve  a  contradiction. "f 

In  the  preface  to  the  Loci  Hafenreffer  writes,  justifying  the 
order  in  which  he  introduces  the  different  articles:  "The  first 
Locus  in  this  (third)  part  is  that  of  predestination,  or  the  counsel 
for  restoring  man's  salvation,  which  mystery  was  hidden  from 
eternity,  but  is  now  revealed  in  the  Word.  Since  this  counsel  of 
predestination  is  not  absolute,  but  qualified  and  limited  in  Christ, 
as  He  is  to  be  embraced  by  faith,  therefore  we  must  in  the  second 
place  treat  at  once  of  Christ,  as  the  Captain  of  our  salvation.  .  .  . 
Furthermore,  since  the  counsel  of  restoring  man  is  not  absolute 
in  Christ,^  but  limited  by  Christ  as  He  is  to  be  embraced  by  faith, 
therefore,  we  must  in  the  third  place  treat  of  faith  by  which  we 
embrace  Christ,  our  Restorer,  and  appropriate  His  benefits 
prepared  for  us,  according  to  the  eternal  counsel  of  predestina- 
tion. Again,  since  faith  is  not  man's,  but  God's  work  and  gift, 
and  since  Christ,  our  Restorer,  administered  His  triple  (prophetic, 
royal,  and  highpriestly)  office  most  faithfully  for  the  purpose  that 
faith  might  be  imparted  to  us  and  preserved  and  strengthened  till 
the  end  (for  the  great  prophet  awakens  repentance  and  faith  in 
our  hearts  through  the  work  of  the  Word,  of  the  Law  and  the 
Gospel),  therefore  we  must  treat  in  the  fourth  place  of  the  Law 
and    the    Gospel.  .  .  .  But    since    (as    Christ,    the    most    faith- 

*  Missouri,  however,  is  determined  to  hold  fast  at  this  point  the 
"mystery'  of  two  "contradictory  wills":  1)  God  does  not  regard  faith 
in  electing  unto  salvation,  choosing  without  faith  for  the  sake  of  the  un- 
appropriated merit  of  Christ;  2)  God  regards  faith  to  such  an  extent  in 
election  that  He  did  not  choose  so  many  only  because  they  lacked  faith!  ! 

t  As  far  as  the  idea  of  election  is  concerned,  in  the  question  concern- 
ing the  relation  between  faith  and  election,  Missouri's  doctrine  resembles 
that  of  Huber  as  one  egg  resembles  another.  This  St.  Louis  will  not  be 
able  to  deny. 

X  As  Huberians  and  Missourians  teach. 


342  Intuitu  Fidel. 

ful  Prophet,  indeed  earnestly  desires)  all  men  do  not  obey  the 
Gospel,  nor  lend  their  ears  or  constant  obedience  to  the  Word 
of  faith,  therefore  Christ  the  King  gathers  an  especial  kingdom, 
that  is  the  church,  of  which  the  following  article  treats." 


LUKE  OSIANDER. 

Luke  Osiander*  wrote  a  book  in  1593,  which  his  Wueterm- 
berg  colleagues  recommended, against  FranzPuccius,a  liberalistic 
Italian,  who  claimed  that  all  men  would  be  saved  by  virtue  of 
Christ's  redemption  through  a  kind  of  natural  faith,  hence,  with- 
out faith  in  the  Gospel.  Osiander  indeed  does  not  in  his  investi- 
gations treat  explicitly  of  "predestination" — as  we  should  most 
certainly  expect  a  true  Missourian  to  do — but  he  dwells  repeat- 
edly on  the  difference  between  God's  universal  will  of  grace  and 
the  particular  decree  of  salvation,  so  that  we  can  see  clearly 
whether  he  teaches  with  Missouri,  that  the  elective  decree  of 
salvation  was  formed  without  regard  to  faith,  or  with  us  Luth- 
erans the  opposite  doctrine,  that  believers  as  such  are  the  adequate 
(real)  objects  of  the  elective,  separating  decree  of  salvation.  Osi- 
ander writes: 

"Since  God  had  already,  in  a  manner  stated  above, f  dem- 
onstrated His  friendship  for  man  more  than  sufificiently,  it  surely 
will  not  detract  from  His  equity  or  from  this  friendship  of  His, 


*  See  the  note  above.  —  Since  St.  Louis  appeals  so  strongly  to  Osi- 
ander, we  call  upon  him  for  this  particular  testimony,  although  the  fact, 
that  he  confessed  agreement  in  doctrine  with  the  Wittenbergers  and  Wuer- 
tembergers  would  be  testimony  enough.  How  different  in  every  respect 
these  refutations  of  Huber  would  have  been,  if  they  had  been  intended  to 
defend  the  Missourian  doctrine. 

t  Osiander  shows  at  considerable  length  in  the  preceding  discussion 
that  God  earnestly  called  all  men  from  Adam  on.  He  declares  for  in- 
stance: "God  promised  Christ  to  our  first  parents  and  their  descendants, 
so  that  whosoever  believes  in  Him  shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life.  God  has  opened  heaven  for  all  men,  if  only  they  had  desired  to  enter. 
He  called  Cain  to  repentance,  if  only  he  would  have  obeyed.  All  could 
have  learned  the  right  way  unto  salvation,  if  they  had  desired  it.  God 
has  at  all  times  shown  the  way  of  salvation  to  men,  if  only  they  had  been 
ready  to  follow  it.  If  men  would  take  as  much  trouble  in  searching  out 
the  truth  (as  they  take  in  securing  riches,  honor,  pleasure),  they  would 
without  a  doubt  reach  the  happy  haven  of  eternal  salvation.  But  volun- 
tarily (sponte)  they  close  their  eyes",  etc. 


Luke  Osiander.  343 

when  He  does  not  save  those  who  do  not  believe  in  Christ,  since 
He  has  long  ago  revealed  His  decree  to  the  world,  that  He  would 
save  none  outside  of  Christ.*  For  there  is  salvation  in  none 
other,  and  no  other  name  given  among  men  whereby  we  must 
be  saved.  To  him  who  does  not  believe  in  this  only  Savior  we 
can  promise  no  efficacy  of  the  Savior  Christ"  (this  surely  means 
to  say:  Without  faith  Christ  is  of  no  benefit).  "For  God's  decree, 
irrevocably  revealed  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  promises  salvation 
to  none  save  believers  in  Christ."     (Page  19.) 

"It  is  one  thing,  that  God  in  His  Word  has  revealed  His  will 
most  clearly;  it  is  another  thing,  that  some  men  do  not  accept 
this  revealed  gracious  will.  For  the  revelation  of  the  divine  will 
(in  the  Gospel)  is  intended  for  the  many;  but  the  appropriation 
of  the  divine  mercy  is  only  for  those  who  receive  the  gift  of  faith. 
And  faith  (St.  Paul  tells  us)  is  not  for  every  man,  2  Thess.  3,  2. 
For  this  reason  Christ  teaches  repeatedly :  Many  are  called,  but 
few  are  chosen.  And  Christ  calls  His  church  the  little  flock." 
(Page  128.t) 

"When  Puccius  imputes  envy  to  God,  because  He  excludes 
those  from  the  power  and  beneficent  efficacy  of  Christ's  merit 
who  do  not  believe  in  Christ,  who  do  not  receive  the  gift  of  special 
gracej  and  lack  Baptism,  he  blasphemously  accuses  God  of  in- 
justice because  God  formed  the  determination  that  He  would 
save  those  only  who  believe  in  Christ.  For  God  publicly  pro- 
mulgated this  determination  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Paul  says 
of  God  the  Father:     He  chose  us  in  Christ  before  the  founda- 


*  Osiander  here  takes  up  the  thought  of  the  F.  C,  which  declares: 
"In  Christ  we  are  to  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father,  who  in  His 
eternal  divine  counsel  determined  that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those 
who  acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  Him."  There  is 
only  one  divine  decree  of  salvation.  If  God  in  His  universal  will  of  grace 
looked  for  faith,  and  if  election  is  this  decree  of  salvation,  then  election  has 
looked  for  faith.     Who  can  deny  this? 

t  Osiander  states  clearly  that  in  the  words:  "Few  are  chosen",  Christ 
means  that  of  believers  and  hence  of  those  who  are  saved  there  are  but 
few.  On  Eph.  1,  4  this  same  Osiander  writes:  "God  chose  us  unto  eternal 
life  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  formed  the  decree  concerning 
us,  that  He  would  save  us  through  Christ  (if  we  would  believe  in  Him)." 
A  decree  of  salvation  without  the  condition  of  faith  in  Christ  is  evidently 
a  second,  different  will  of  grace. 

X  By  "special  grace"  Osiander  means,  as  is  shown  clearly  on  page  12, 
the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  means  of  grace,  as  distinguished  from 
the  "natural  grace"  of  Puccius.     Cf.  pp.  107-109. 


344  Intuitu  Fidei. 

tion  of  the  world.  Therefore  he  who  is  not  implanted  in  Christ 
through  faith  and  Baptism,  that  he  may  become  a  spiritual  mem- 
ber of  Christ,  has  no  part  in  the  kingdom  of  God;  and  he  who  is 
not  a  branch  of  the  vine  Christ  cannot  partake  of  His  benefits. 
Branches,  however,  are  planted  in  the  vine  Christ  only  by  faith." 
(Page  12.) 

"The  instrumental  cause  of  our  salvation  is  faith  in  Christ; 
to  him  who  lacks  this  Christ  is  of  no  benefit."  (Well,  well,  Osi- 
ander!  If  you  were  a  true  Missourian  you  would  "self-evidently 
abhor"  such  language!)  "Christ  declares:  He  that  believeth  in 
the  Son  will  not  be  judged  (i.  e.  condemned);  but  he  who  be- 
lieveth not  is  already  judged  (i.  e.  eternal  damnation,  if  he  per- 
sists in  unbelief,  is  already  surely  fixed  for  him),  because  he  does 
not  believe  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  In 
these  words,  Puccius,  you  have  the  instrumental  cause,  by  which 
the  salvation  obtained  in  Christ  is  received.  .  .  .  Christ, 
the  Savior  benefits  no  one  save  those  who  are  awakened  from  the 
death  of  sin  through  true  and  explicit  faith  in  the  only  begotten 
Son  of  God."     (Page  46.) 

"That  God  wants  all  men  to  be  saved,  if  they  themselves  also 
want  to  be  saved,  is  not  the  question.  But  that  He  will  save 
those  who  do  not  use  the  means  ordained  unto  salvation,  the 
Scriptures  nowhere  declare,  they  state  the  very  opposite.  And 
the  passage  mentioned  (1  Tim.  2,  4),  which  Puccius  quotes,  re- 
futes his  error.  Paul  commands  that  we  pray  for  all  men,  also 
for  the  heathen  government.  He  gives  as  his  reason,  that  God 
wants  all  men  to  be  saved  and  to  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the 
truth.  In  these  words  Pattl  shows  how  men  can  be  saved." 
(Page  139.) 

Osiander,  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  other  Wuertemberg 
theologians,  as  also  with  the  Wittenbergers,  held  fast  over  against 
Huber  to  the  truth,  that  the  real  election  of  persons  unto  the 
certain  attainment  of  salvation,  or  the  particular  divine  decree 
of  salvation,  has  foreseen  faith  as  its  presupposition ;  he  taught  the 
same  scriptural  and  confessional  truth  in  unison  with  the  same 
theologians  over  against  the  Calvinists,  and  declared  explicitly 
that  this  also  is  the  sense  of  the  11th  article  of  the  F.  C.  In  1601, 
for  instance,  the  Wuertemberg  theologians — among  them  L.  Osi- 
ander as  one  of  the  most  respected  fathers  (he  died  in  1604) — 
issued  their  "Sound  and  Thorough  Report"  against  the  Stafifort 


John   Coler.  345 

Book  of  the  Count  of  Baden.  They  lay  stress  on  the  fact,  that 
in  the  doctrine  of  predestination  faith  is  "not  to  be  regarded  as 
an  efftcient,  meritorious,  complete  cause,  or  one  for  the  sake  of 
which  we  are  chosen;  no,  by  no  means,  but  as  a  secondary  cause, 
by  which  we  grasp  the  merit  of  Christ  (in  whom  and  for  the  sake 
of  whom  we  were  chosen)  and  apply  and  appropriate  it  to  our- 
selves." 'Faith,  however,"  they  tell  us,  "or  its  ordination  be- 
lo^ngs  not  only  to  the  execution,  but  also  to  the  counsel  of  our 
i^alvation  and  to  election  itself."  "As  also  the  Christian  Book 
of  Concord  places  faith  in  Christ  among  the  eight  antecedent 
parts"  (the  well-known  eight  points),  "which  must  be  taken  to- 
gether when  we  speak  of  God's  eternal  election  unto  sonship, 
just  as  the  Epitome  declares  explicitly  that  God  in  His  eternal 
counsel  determined  to  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowl- 
ledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  Him.  Therefore  sav- 
ing faith  is  embodied  in  eternal  predestination,  not  as  a  cause 
and  merit  of  predestination,  but  as  a  necessary,  constituent,  with- 
out which  the  doctrine  of  election  would  be  incomplete,  since 
we  are  chosen  in  Christ,  and  Christ  cannot  be  embraced  and  His 
merit  applied  to  us  except  by  faith."  (Page  709.)  God,  there- 
fore, we  are  told,  "did  not  choose  absolutely,  but  in  gracious  view 
of  faith  in  Christ."     ("K.  Z."  as  quoted  above.) 


JOHN  COLER. 


John  Coler,  son  of  Jacob  Coler  (Koehler),  referred  to  above, 
published  from  flie  posthumous  papers  of  his  father,  in  1614,  a 
work  entitled:  "Oeconomia  Ecclesiastica:  A  Spiritual  and  Use- 
ful Book  for  the  House  concerning  the  Lutheran,  the  Papal,  the 
Calvinistic,  and  the  Turkish  Faith."  In  this  work  of  12G2  pages 
he  places  the  doctrinal  propositions  of  the  four  "chief  religions" 
mentioned  side  by  side  in  parallel  columns,  so  that  "every  lay- 
man may  not  only  see  the  certainty  of  his  faith,"  but  may  also 
avoid  the  "chief  errors  of  these  three  spirits  of  error,  and  may 
approve  himself  a  good  warrior."  "I  know  well,"  he  tells  us  in 
the  preface,  "that  I  bring  nothing  new."  The  Lutheran  doctrine 
which  he  set  forth,  also  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  was  there- 
fore not  new,  but  the  general  doctrine,  preached,  taught,  defended, 
and  held  fast  as  Lutheran  in  churches,  schools,  universities,  and 
congregations  since  the  memory  of  man,  and  especially  since  the 


346  hitidtu  Fidei. 

adoption  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  And  now  how  does  Coler 
set  forth  the  doctrine  of  our  Lutheran  Church  in  this  compara- 
tive exhibition  of  the  doctrines  of  the  different  religions?  What 
does  he  declare  to  be,  not  his  own  private  opinion  or  the  opinion 
of  a  few  theologians,  but  the  unanimous,  universally  acknowl- 
edged, undisputed  Lutheran  doctrine  concerning  predestination? 

On  page  212  we  read  the  heading:  "Lutheran  Faith:  How 
God  in  His  paternal  heart  elects  believers  unto  eternal  life."  By 
the  side  of  this  we  find  as  the  faith  of  Calvinists:  "God  elects 
the  smallest  number  unto  eternal  life,  and  this  without  regard  to 
any  means."     The  "Lutheran  Faith"  is  elaborated  as  follows: 

"When  we  contemplate  God,  our  heavenly  Father,  according 
to  His  fatherly  heart,  as  the  eagle,  St.  John,  in  spiritual  loftiness 
pictures  Him,  declaring  that  He  is  love  itself  (1  John  4),  we  find 
that  He  was  not  idle  before  the  creation  of  this  resplendent  heaven 
and  of  this  beautiful  widely  extended  earth  and  all  that  stirs  and 
moves  therein,  but  that  on  His  part  He,  as  essential  love,  has 
begotten  and  born  the  Son  from  eternity,  who  also  as  eternal  love 
remains  in  the  Father's  bosom,  from  whom  and  the  Father  the 
Holy  Spirit  proceeds  as  essential  eternal  love,  yea,  as  the  flame 
and  indissoluable  bond  of  love  between  the  Father  and  the  Son." 

"But  as  far  as  we  are  concerned.  He  has  taken  counsel  and 
determined  from  eternity  in  pure  fatherly  love,  grace,  and  mercy, 
how  He  would  create  man  and  have  him  blessed.  As  Paul  also, 
among  other  things,  clearly  testifies,  saying:  Elegit  nos  in 
Christo,  He  has  chosen  us,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
through  Christ."  (In  the  margin  we  find  the  note:  "N.  B. 
Election  unto  life  in  Christ.     Note  this  well.") 

"For  as  an  omniscient  God,  for  whom  nothing  is  future  or 
past,  but  everything  constantly  present.  He  foresaw  and  knew 
that,  if  He  were  to  create  man  in  His  image  unto  eternal  life  in 
pure  love  and  unto  voluntary  reciprocal  love,  man  would  fall 
through  the  cunning  and  deception  of  the  devil  and  the  abuse 
of  His  free  will,  would  transgress  His  commandment,  and  plunge 
himself  and  all  his  descendants  into  temporal  and  eternal  distress. 
Therefore  He  furthermore  counseled,  decreed,  and  determined 
to  send  into  the  flesh  His  most  beloved  only  begotten  Son  for 
the  whole  fallen  human  race  as  an  Asylum,  Savior,  and  Bringer  of 
salvation,  so  that  none  of  them  might  perish  and  be  condemned." 
(In  the  margin:  "Christ  is  given  to  all,  and  the  Gospel  pro- 
claimed to  all  men,  that  thereby  they  might  be  directed  to  Christ.") 


JoJm   Coler.  347 

"And  therefore  He  sent  the  Word,  which  alone  is  able  to 
save,  out  into  all  the  wide  world  and  proclaimed  it  to  all  nations 
and  tongues  and  directed  all,  all  of  them  to  this  brazen  serpent, 
Jesus  Christ." 

"This  gracious  love  some,  following  the  old  teacher  Damas- 
cenus,  call  the  antecedent  fatherly  will  of  God,  and  this  not  im- 
properly. Others,  however,  as  Dr.  Samuel  Huber  and  his  allies, 
entitle  this  universal  decree  of  grace  an  election  which  extends 
over  all  men  (sed  minus  proprie.  i.  e.  improperly  speaking), 
whether  they  believe  or  do  not  believe.  Inasmuch  as  it  has  taken 
into  account  (1)  the  reconciliation  of  the  whole  human  race,  (2) 
the  purchase  of  eternal  salvation,  and  (3)  the  Word  calling  all 
nations  to  this  gracious  salvation  in  Christ.  But  just  as  God, 
our  heavenly  Father,  was  not  ignorant  of  the  pitiable  fall  of  our 
first  parents,  and  as  He  ordained  and  devised  counsel  and  help 
on  account  of  it,  so  also  He  saw  fully  and  really  and  was  not  in 
ignorance  regarding  the  fact,  that  by  far  the  greater  part  of  man- 
kind would  resist  His  Spirit,  would  despise  His  saving  counsel 
regarding  themselves,  would  cast  away  His  Word,  and  consider 
themselves  unworthy  of  eternal  life." 

"And  for  this  reason  He  decreed  and  determined,  according 
to  His  subsequent  will,  concerning  all  the  children  of  men  what 
their  final  end  should  be.  Thus :  those  who  believe  and  persevere 
to  the  end  shall  be  saved."  (In  the  margin:  "Which  are  prop- 
erly the  elect.")  "But  those  who  do  not  believe  shall  remain  be- 
neath the  wrath  of  God."* 


*  The  sum  and  substance  of  the  present  controversy  between  Luther- 
ans and  Missourian  Calvinists  may  be  clearly  summarized  in  the  question: 
Are  God's  gracious  will  to  save  all  men  through  Christ,  and  His  elective 
decree  to  save  only  certain  persons,  two  different  wills  of  grace  in  God, 
or  are  they  subordinate  and  harmonized  by  the  foresight  of  faith?  We  Lu- 
therans maintain  the  latter,  and  hence  we  distinguish,  as  did  our  fathers, 
between  the  antecedent  and  the  subsequent  will  of  God.  The  former  is  the 
universal  will  of  God's  grace  and  love,  according  to  which  He  would  have 
all  men  without  exception  to  be  saved  through  faith  in  Christ.  The  latter 
is  the  fixed  will  of  God's  decree,  which  foresees  actual  faith  and  unbelief 
and  then  declares,  on  the  one  hand:  "Thou  art  chosen  and  predestinated 
unto  salvation,"  and  on  the  other:  "Thou  canst  not  be  chosen  unto  salva- 
tion, because  thou  dost  not  believe  in  the  Savior."  Missouri,  however, 
rejects  this  distinction,  and  teaches  in  contradicting  it,  that  the  universal 
will  of  grace  and  the  particular  election  of  grace  both  refer  to  the  whole 
unbelieving  mass  of  sinners,  as  they  lie  without  distinction  in  their  general 
depravity ;  and,  following  this  view,  God  is  said  to  choose  a  certain  ex- 


348  Intuitu  Fidei. 

"From  this  decree  now  there  originates  and  flows  out  elec- 
tion unto  eternal  life  and  reprobation  unto  eternal  damnation. 
This  reprobation,  however,  is  by  no  means  due  to  God,  but  to 
the  devil  and  the  wickedness  of  the  human  heart.  For  the  foun- 
dation of  God  standeth  sure:  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are 
His  and  will  let  no  one  tear  them  from  His  hands  where  He  has 
written  their  names;  since  they  permit  themselves  (!*)  to  be 
drawn  by  His  Spirit,  and  permit  (!)  their  hearts  to  be  opened, 


elusive  number  from  this  mass  which  is  altogether  alike,  choosing  them 
unto  eternal  life  as  the  final  goal,  and  by  the  same  decree  of  salvation  also 
unto  infallible  conversion  and  perseverance  as  the  v^ray  for  attaining  this 
goal.  A  person  must  indeed  be  altogether  blind,  if  he  does  not  see,  or 
rather  will  not  see,  that  what  is  here  called  "predestination"  is  simply  an- 
other will  of  grace,  a  will  of  grace  altogether  different  from  the  universal 
will  of  grace,  yea  contradicting  this  will  directly.  An  honest  Missourian 
must  acknowledge  this:  "We  Missourians  teach  that  God,  before  He 
chose  men  to  salvation,  did  indeed  look  for  faith  in  a  certain  number  and 
made  their  election  strictly  dependent  on  whether  they  would  believe  in 
Christ,  refusing  to  elect  them  because  of  their  unbelief;  in  the  case  of 
others  God  did  not  look  for  faith,  or  if  He  looked,  saw  them  also  in  the 
same  depravity,  but  elected  them  in  spite  of  it.  Our  Missourian  'mystery' 
therefore  consists  really  in  this  inequality  in  the  will  of  God's  grace,  this 
inequality  which  decides  everything."  This  is  how  an  honest  Missourian 
would  have  to  set  forth  his  doctrine  concerning  the  relation  between  the 
so-called  election  of  grace  and  the  universal  will  of  grace.  The  two  are 
so  completely  "altogether  different  things",  that  God  by  virtue  of  His 
universal  will  of  grace  always  wills  to  ordain  only  those  who  believe,  and 
these  as  believers,  unto  salvation,  and  not  a  single  sinner  without  be- 
lieving, or  without  the  foresight  of  faith  in  Christ;  while  this  same  truthful 
God,  on  the  other  hand,  by  virtue  of  election  and  in  His  "secret  counsel" 
does  in  reality  elect  and  ordain  unto  eternal  life  the  "few"  as  sinners  with- 
out faith.  Consequently,  God's  will,  we  are  told,  is  in  the  one  case  the 
very  opposite  of  what  it  is  in  the  other.  What  is  yea  here,  is  nay  there; 
what  is  yea  there,  is  nay  here.  All  that  God  declares  so  earnestly  and 
solemnly  unto  all  men,  that  so  and  in  no  other  way  He  would  decree  their 
salvation,  namely  according  to  His  knowledge  of  their  conversion  and 
perseverence  through  the  power  of  His  universal  grace,  all  this  is  simply 
to  be  set  aside  in  "predestination."  Here,  they  tell  us.  God  does  not  at 
all  seek  and  inquire  after  conversion  and  perseveience,  but  proceeds  with- 
out anything  further  to  ordain  this  and  that  sinner  as  such  unto  eternal 
life!  Now  if  God's  decree  of  salvation  looks  for  faith  in  all  in  the  same 
Vvay,  or  if  it  looks  for  faith  in  none  at  all,  then  His  will  is  equal  for  all. 
But  to  teach  that  God  looks  for  faith  in  the  case  of  some,  and  does  not 
look  for  faith  in  the  case  of  others,  is  to  impute  to  God  an  unequal  will 
regarding  salvation! 

*  Well,  well,  what  a  poor  Missourian  you  are!     "Permit  themselves", 
etc.!  ! 


John   Coler.  349 

hear  the  Word  in  meekness  and  accept  it,  keep  it  in  their  hearts, 
and  govern  their  Hves  according  to  this  Word  which  is  able  to 
save  their  souls,  believe  in  Christ,  use  the  Holy  Sacraments,  and 
remain  steadfast  to  the  end  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

"The  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath  appeared  to 
all  men.  .  .  .  God  Avill  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  come 
to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth.  God  is  not  willing  that  any  should 
perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance.  Come  unto  me 
all  ye  that  are  weary  and  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest. 
From  these  and  similar  passages  it  appears  sufificiently  that  God, 
our  heavenly  Father,  did  not  nakedly,  without  any  condition 
choose  some  few  men  unto  eternal  life,  and  that  He  is  the  only 
cause  why  there  are  so  few  and  such  a  small  number  of  the  elect; 
on  the  contrary,  it  appears  that  He  would  most  heartily  have  all 
men  obtain  salvation,  for  which  reason  also  He  reconciled  the 
whole  world  unto  Himself  in  Christ,  and  it  is  His  will,  that  they 
may  believe  and  repent  and  persevere  to  the  end." 

"However,  since  Christ  came  unto  His  own,  and  His  own 
received  Him  not,  He  has  given  power  to  become  the  children  of 
God  to  those  alone  who  believe  in  His  name"  (in  the  margin: 
"Who  are  properly  the  elect").  And  accordingly  our  heavenly 
Father  predestinated,  ordained,  and  elected  unto  eternal  life  all 
those  of  whom  He  foresaw  and  knew  that  they  would  believe  in 
His  Son  Christ  Jesus"  (in  the  margin:  "Rom.  8;  Eph.  1;  Heb. 
11;  Rom.  11;  John  10;  Col.  1;  2  Thess.  2")— "(not  indeed  propter 
ipsorum  credere,  sed  propter  Christum,  in  quem  credunt,  not  for 
the  sake  of  their  faith  as  a  meritorious  cause,  as  in  times  past  the 
Pelagians  dreamed,  and  as  Augustine  before  he  retracted,  to- 
gether with  Ambrosius  and  Chrysostom,  who  also  erred  on  this 
point,  taught ;  but  for  the  sake  of  Christ  in  whom  they  believe) — 
and  persevere  in  Him  to  the  end  and  permit  themselves  (!*)  to 
be  governed  and  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  faith  alone  is 
the  spiritual  hand  which  embraces  Christ,  in  whom  we  are  chosen, 
and  all  the  blessings  He  obtained  for  us."t 


*  Here  again  this  "permit  themselves"  so  distasteful  to  Missouri. 

t  This  was  the  doctrine  of  our  Lutheran  fathers,  the  faithful  theologians 
of  the  Church  of  the  Formula  of  Concord;  and  this  is  our  doctrine. 
Whether  a  sinner  is  really  to  have  the  righteousness  and  salvatioii  ob- 
tained by  Christ,  or  not  (whether  he  is  to  be  chosen  unto  justification  and 
salvation,  or  not),  depends  in  the  will  of  God  on  whether  he  believes  in  his 
Savior,  or  not.     So  teaches  the  entire  Gospel  of  Christ;    so  believes  and 


850  hitidtu  Fidei. 


MATTHEW  VOGEL. 


We  have  already  brought  a  testimony  from  Vogel,  which  we 
found  quoted  in  the  Acta  Huberiana.  It  was  probably  taken 
from  his  Latin  Thesaurus,  which,  however,  is  only  an  extract  from 
the  larger  German  work  of  Vogel*  issued  at  Tuebingen  in  1587 
in  7  folio  volumes  with  the  title:  "Treasury  of  the  Holy  Divine 
Scriptures."  The  first  part  treats  of  the  "Chief  Articles  of  our 
Christian  Religion,"  and  among  these  also  (pp.  479-499)  "con- 
cerning the  eternal  predestination  and  election  of  God."  The 
work  was  issued  "With  a  Preface  by  the  Theological  Faculty  of 
Tuebingen  and  by  the  Consistorium  of  the  Principality  of  Stutt- 
gart." Here  we  read  among  other  things:  "We  do  not  doubt, 
since  these  writings  have  been  drawn  purely  and  only  from  the 
Word  of  God,  that  the  Almighty  will  effect  much  good  through 
them  in  His  beloved  church.  For  the  Word  of  God,  when  pro- 
claimed in  truth  and  purity,  cannot  but  bring  fruit  and  benefit. 
This  work  will  be  of  service  to  a  pastor  and  preacher,  whatever 


confesses  our  evangelical  Church.  Missouri  indeed  comes  trotting  along 
with  its  wisdom  borrowed  from  Calvin  and  declares:  "How  is  this  pos- 
sible! In  God  there  are  no  conditions!  He  Himself  must  first  work  and 
give  faith.  He  Himself  must  decree  who  is  to  have  faith  or  in  whom  He  will 
work  faith;  how  can  God  then  seek,  searclT,  or  inquire  for  this  faith  which 
He  Himself  must  give  and  work!  !"  —  Is  not  this  a  beautiful  piece  of  wis- 
dom in  the  fine  appearance  of  an  angel  of  light,  overthrowing  so  com- 
pletely at  one  sweep  the  entire  Lutheran  doctrine  of  justification  through 
faith?  !  For  evidently  we  would  have  to  continue  in  the  same  strain: 
"How  could  God  leave  it  to  be  decided  by  faith,  whom  He  will  justify  in 
time  and  bring  to  salvation,  and  whom  not?  Election  unto  justification 
and  salvation  has  already  taken  place  from  eternity  without  regard  to  faith. 
And  surely,  God  could  not  decree  then  who  is  surely  to  be  saved  and  there- 
fore now  in  time  to  come  to  faith  and  to  die  therein,  and  afterwards  in  a 
most  superfluous  way  decree  once  more  that  those  who  now  so  live  and 
die  in  faith  shall  actually  be  justified  and  saved.  No:  God  decrees  noth- 
ing superfluous.  Not  for  this  reason,  therefore,  does  God  now  in  time 
justify  and  save  certain  sinners  in  preference  to  others,  because  He  looks 
to  faith  or  inquires  regarding  the  appropriation  of  Christ's  merit,  and 
makes  the  merit  of  Christ  as  appropriated  by  faith  the  decisive  thing.  On 
the  contrary,  the  very  opposite  takes  place;  the  fact  that  these  and  not 
those  are  the  ones  to  be  justified  and  saved  has  been  decided  already  from 
eternity  by  the  mere  pleasure  of  the  free  and  hidden  purpose  of  God,  and 
for  this  reason  God  brings  these  who  have  been  freely  chosen  unto  justifi- 
cation unto  faith  as  the  "means  for  carrying  His  election  into  effect."  — 
Consequently,  faith  decides  nothing  at  all  any  more! 
*  It  has  but  recently  come  into  our  possession. 


Matthew  Vogel.  351 

the  article  or  Locus  communis  (point  of  doctrine)  may  be  which 
he  intends  to  treat  in  a  sermon,  furnishing  him  at  once  testimony 
and  examples  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  the  Christian  elucida- 
tion and  proof  of  the  matter  in  hand.  Here  he  will  find  every- 
thing together,  in  its  proper  order,  regularly  arranged,  so  that  in 
a  very  short  space  of  time  he  will  be  able  to  work  out  a  well- 
ordered,  rich,  and  well-founded  sermon."  Adami  also  states  that 
Vogel  tried  to  serve  "candidates  of  theology  and  servants  of  the 
church,  especially  the  younger  among  them"  by  his  Concordance 
in  7  volumes. 

Now  picture  to  yourself  the  circumstances  as  far  as  the  ques- 
tion is  concerned,  whether  the  doctrine  of  predestination  as  pre- 
sented in  this  work  was  really  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
at  that  time  or  not.  Vogel  himself  had  already  signed  the  F.  C. 
as  Superintendent  (Abbot)  of  Alperspach.  In  1581  he  was 
already  preparing  for  the  publication  of  his  Treasury;  it  was  rec- 
ommended by  the  Tuebingen  Faculty  and  the  Stuttgart  Con- 
sistory (among  these  also  Luke  Osiander,  sen.),  and  finally 
reached  its  completion  in  1587.  The  work  was  meant  to  serve 
especially  "candidates,  pastors,  and  preachers"  in  working  out 
their  sermons,  and,  to  be  published  complete,  it  required  a  wide 
circulation.  It  is  to  contain  nothing  but  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  of  the  Lutheran  Confessions,  hence  the  article 
'Concerning  the  predestination  and  election  of  God"  in  strict  ac- 
cord with  the  11th  article  of  the  F.  C,  which  had  just  been  adopted 
by  the  Lutheran  Church  as  the  correct  expression  of  its  faith  in 
its  conscious  opposition  to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  predesti- 
nation. Is  it  possible,  is  it  conceivable  that  Vogel  should  have 
set  forth  in  this  work  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  a  doctrine  altogether  different  from  that  which 
the  contemporary  Lutheran  Church  understood  to  be  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession?  Would  not  hun- 
dreds, yea  thousands  of  teachers  and  laymen  have  objected  at 
once  and  asked:  "What?  Is  this  to  be  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
of  predestination  and  election?  This  has  never  been  our  Luth- 
eran doctrine  of  election,  and  shall  not  now  be  sent  out  by  Vogel 
as  Lutheran  doctrine  without  earnest  contradiction  on  our  part! 
No!  We  Lutherans  do  not  teach  as  Vogel  declares;  on  the  con- 
trary we  teach  so  and  so,"  etc.  But  not  a  single  voice  in  all  the 
Lutheran  Church  is  heard  objecting!     If  the  Lutheran  Church  at 


352  Intuitu  Fidei. 

that  time  had  been  Missourian  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination, 
there  would  have  been  a  shouting  and  a  tumuU  and  a  ratthng  of 
swords  in  the  entire  church  of  Germany  so  great  as  to  be  com- 
pletely overwhelming.  In  the  shortest  space  of  time  Vogel  would 
have  been  placed  on  the  Missourian  theological  pyre  and  dutifully 
reduced  to  ashes  as  a  heretic  and  deceiver,  and  his  "Treasury" 
would  have  been  put  on  the  Index  of  prohibited  books.  But 
nothing  of  the  kind  occurred! 

And  another  thing  dare  not  be  forgotten  in  this  connection. 
Adami  tells  us  that  Matthew  Vogel  "was  a  pupil  of  Luther  for 
five  years,  and  the  doctrine  he  learned  of  him  he  promulgated  as 
long  as  he  lived."  This  is  Vogel's  testimonial  as  a  faithful  pupil 
of  Luther.  And  his  flight  to  Prussia  on  account  of  the  Interim 
confirms  the  fact,  that  he  was  a  stalwart,  faithful  scholar  of  Luther, 
by  whom  personally,  in  1544  or  1545,  "after  due  public  examina- 
tion he  had  been  found  worthy  of  having  the  work  of  the  church 
entrusted  to  his  care."  There  cannot  be  the  least  doubt  that 
Vogel  in  his  Treasury,  which  had  been  completed  at  least  11  years, 
and  had  been  in  print  5  years  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Huber 
controversy,  set  forth  the  faith  of  the  Lutheran  Church  as  it  then 
actually  lived  in  the  hearts  of  its  members  and  was  preached  from 
its  pulpits;  and  this  also  as  regards  "predestination  and  election," 
yea  as  regards  this  "chief  article"  especially,  which  since  1586  had 
been  placed  in  the  forefront  of  discussion  by  the  renowned  Moem- 
pelgart  debate  between  Andreae  and  Beza,  and  became  from  this 
time  on  the  main  point  of  difference  between  the  two  churches. 
Let  us  hear  now  our  old  Luther-Bird  (Vogel^bird)  sing  his  song 
on  "predestination  and  election,  and  then  you  may  ask:  How 
does  this  agree  with  Missouri?  If  this  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
F.  C,  how  then  does  Missouri  agree  with  this  Church  and  with 
its  doctrine  and  Confessions?  This,  doubtless,  is  another,  great 
historical  "mystery":  all  these  theologians  and  leaders  of  the 
Lutheran  Chvirch  had  deviated  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Sym- 
bol, but  the  Church  itself  believed  as  Missouri  believes,  merely 
lacking  courage  to  open  its  mouth  against  its  highly  respected 
theologians.  But  let  us  hear  our  Luther-Bird:  "Concerning 
the  eternal  predestination  and  election  of  God." 


Matthew  Vogel.  353 

1.        "GOD    CHOSE    MEN    UNTO    ETERNAL    SALVATION    THROUGH 
CHRIST    BEFORE   THE    BEGINNING    OF   THE    WORLD." 

(a)  Why  do  papists  and  baptists  trust  in  their  works  before 
God?  God  in  His  unspeakable  grace  and  mercy  having  chosen 
us  men  before  we  existed,  yea  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
through  Christ,  His  beloved  Son?*  (Passages:  Tit.  1:  Eternal 
life  was  promised  before  the  world  began, — before  man  or  any 
other  creature  had  been  created.  Eternal  life,  therefore,  is  no 
merit  of  man,  but  a  gift  of  God  bestowed  upon  man  in  pure  mercy 
through  Christ.  1  Peter  1 :  Christ  was  foreordained  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world, — that  through  Him  alone  the  human 
race  should  be  blessed.) 

(b)  And  accordingly  He  predestinated  and  ordained  us  unto 
eternal  salvation  without  any  merit  or  worthiness  on  our  part." 
(Passages:  Rom.  9:  The  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither 
having  done  any  good  or  evil; — since  temporal  blessings  do  not 
flow  from  man's  merit,  but  from  the  grace  of  God,  the  same  is 
much  more  true  and  certain  of  eternal  blessing  or  life.  Rom.  9 : 
As  God  Himself  declares:  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will 
have  mercy; — I  find  no  worthiness  or  merit  in  man  on  account 
of  which  I  am  gracious  toward  him;  if  I  would  not  have  mercy 
upon  him,  he  would  be  condemned  eternally  in  his  sins  accord- 
ing to  his  merit;  but  I  have  mercy  on  all  who  comfort  themselves 
with  the  promised  seed  of  the  woman.) 

(c)  Thus  the  chief  article  of  justification  is  confirmed  and 
explained  by  the  doctrine  of  the  predestination  and  election  of 
God  (the  article  according  to  which  we  men,  who  are  altogether 
sinners,  are  justified  without  merit,  by  the  grace  of  God,  through 
Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  His  will,  unto 
the  praise  of  His  glorious  grace,  through  whom  He  hath  made  us 
accepted  in  the  Beloved). 

(d)  In  the  same  way  the  heavenly  counsel  and  election  of 
God  unto  eternal  life  is  published  and  opened  by  the  doctrine  of 
the  justification  of  man  before  God.  (Passages:  Baruch  3: 
God  has  revealed  His  will  to  us.  Eph.  1 :  Having  made  known 
unto  us  the  mystery  of  His  will,  according  to  His  good  pleasure, 
and  having  revealed  it  that  it  should  be  preached  in  the  fulness 

*  We  give  Vogel's  main  propositions  in  full;  from  the  passages  and 
remarks  we  print  only  such  as  serve  to  show  Vogel's  doctrine  with  all 
clearness. 


354  Intuit ti  Fidei. 

of  time — the  mystery,  i.  e.  His  heavenly  counsel  according  to 
which  He  determined  to  save  the  human  race  through  Christ. 
1  Peter  1:  For  salvation  is  prepared,  and  Christ  verily  foreor- 
dained before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  but  was  manifest  in 
these  last  times.  1  John  1:  The  life  that  is  eternal,  which  was 
with  the  Father,  is  declared — that  is,  Christ,  the  eternal  Word, 
who  was  in  the  beginning  with  God  and  became  flesh  to  redeem 
the  human  race,  is  declared  and  proclaimed  alike  among  Jews 
and  Gentiles.  Rom.  1:  And  the  righteousness  which  avails  be- 
fore God  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel.  John  3:  In  this  manner, 
that  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  ever- 
lasting life."* 

2.     "the  means,  through  which  god  revealed  ever  more 

FULLY  HIS  HEAVENLY  COUNSEL  REGARDING  MAN'S  SAL- 
VATION, AND  THROUGH  WHICH  ALSO  HE  CONSTANTLY 
ACCOMPLISHES    OR    CARRIES    IT    OUT    IN    THE    ELECT. 

(e)  For  as  God  wants  all  men  to  be  saved  (Prov.  2:  God 
has  created  man  unto  eternal  life.  2  Peter  8:  It  is  not  His  will 
that  any  should  be  lost.  1  Tim.  2:  But  that  all  may  be  saved 
and  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth). 

(f)  So  also  God  has  ordained  Christ,  His  Son,  as  the  Savior 
for  the  whole  human  race,  and  soon  after  the  fall  of  man  prom- 
ised Him  through  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  in  words  of  in- 
creasing consolation.  (Passages:  Heb.  13:  Jesus  Christ  the 
same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever — i.  e.  through  Christ  not 
only  we  now,  but  also  all  others  who  believed  before  us  and  who 
shall  come  after  us,  are  saved.  1  John  4:  The  Savior  of  the 
world.  Hagg.  2:  The  Desire  of  all  nations.  John  1:  The 
true  light  which  lighteth  every  man — i.  e.  just  as  the  sun  offers 
its  radiance  to  all  men  on  earth,  if  they  step  out  into  it,  or  as  the 
flowing  spout  of  a  well  offers  and  bestows  water  upon  all  the  in- 


*  Now  ask  yourself  honestly  whether  good  old  Vogel  did  not  teach  as 
the  first  part  of  "the  eternal  predestination  and  election  of  God",  that  God 
determined  to  save  all  men  through  Christ  and  directed  all  to  Christ  as 
their  Savior.  This  he  expresses,  as  did  many  others  before  the  Huber 
controversy,  with  the  words  then  altogether  unsuspicious:  "God  chose 
men  unto  eternal  salvation  through  Christ  before  the  beginning  of  the 
world."  This  too  is  evidently  the  first  part  of  the  idea  of  election  in  the 
F.  C. 


Matthew  Vogel.  355 

habitants  of  a  city  who  come  and  get  it,  so  also  Christ  the  true 
knowledge  of  God  to  those  who  aecept  it  by  faith.) 

(g)  And  at  the  appointed  time,  according  to  these  promises 
of  the  prophets  He  sent  the  Son  into  the  world,  that  by  His  suffer- 
ing and  death  He  might  atone  and  pay  for  the  sins  of  all  men. 
(John  1 :  Hence  Christ  is  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away 
the  sins  of  the  world.  John  12:  And  when  I  am  lifted  up  I  w!ll 
draw  all  men  unto  me — i.  e.  and  through  me  to  God,  my  Father, 
that  they  may  be  joined  as  children  to  their  Father.) 

(h)  And  thereupon  He  caused  Christ's  suffering  and  death 
to  be  proclaimed  in  all  the  world  through  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel.  (Passages:  Mark  16:  So  also  Christ  commanded 
His  apostles  that  they  should  go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the 
Gospel  to  all  creatures — i.  e.  all  men,  of  whatever  nation,  or  race, 
or  condition  they  may  be.) 

(i)  God  thereby  revealed  His  secret  counsel,  and  publicly 
called  all  men  unto  the  salvation  to  which  before  the  beginning 
of  the  world  He  had  destined  and  chosen  them,  and  such  gra- 
cious calling  still  continues  constantly  through  pure,  faithful  serv- 
ants of  the  church.  (Passages:  Rom.  8:  Whom  He  did  pre- 
destinate, them  He  also  called — i.  e.  chosen  and  predestinated 
unto  eternal  life.  Matt.  22:  As  is  pictured  by  the  servants  in 
the  parable  of  Christ,  those  who  are  selected  to  call  the  guests  to 
the  marriage.  2  Thess.  5:  God  is  faithful  who  calls  us,  2  Tim.  1, 
9:  with  a  holy  calling,  Gal.  1:  into  the  grace  of  Christ,  1  Thess.  2: 
and  unto  His  kingdom  and  His  glory.  Rev.  19:  Let  us  there- 
fore be  glad  and  rejoice  and  give  honor  to  Him;  for  the  marriage 
of  the  Lamb  is  come,  and  His  wife  (the  elect  believing  Church) 
hath  made  herself  ready.) 

(j)  God,  however,  does  not  only  call,  but  also  directs,  ad- 
monishes, and  draws  men,  as  much  as  lieth  in  Him,  by  the  Word 
and  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  accept  Christ,  His  Son, 
as  He  is  so  comfortingly  presented  and  offered  in  the  Gospel,  by 
true  faith.  (Passages:  John  6:  Christ  Himself  declares:  No 
man  can  come  to  me  (believe  in  me)  except  the  Father  draw  him 
(work  such  faith  in  him) ;  as  is  written  in  the  prophets :  And  they 
shall  all  be  taught  of  God  (understand,  however,  taught  by  the 
public  office  of  the  ministry).  John  5:  As  the  Father  hath  now 
borne  witness  of  the  Son,  2  Cor.  5:  so  now  He  still  admonishes  by 


356  Intuitu  Fidei. 

His  servants,  who  as  embassadors  beseech  us :  Be  ye  reconciled 
to  God.*) 

(k)  And  this  with  the  declaration  that  all  who  rightly  be- 
lieve are  truly  the  elect.  (Passages:  John  3:  God  so  loved 
the  world,  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life. 
John  11:  Jesus  should  die,  not  for  the  nation  of  Israel  alone,  but 
that  He  should  gather  together  in  one  the  children  of  God  (the 
elect  among  men)  that  were  scattered  abroad  (also  among  the 
Gentiles).  John  12:  Hence  Christ  also  declares:  If  I  be  lifted 
up  from  the  earth,  I  will  draw  all  men  unto  me.  John  6:  All 
that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me;  and  him  that  cometh 
to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out — i.  e.  those  whom  the  Father  hath 
predestinated  or  chosen  in  me  unto  eternal  life  believe  in  me  and 
will  partake  of  life  through  faith.  John  17:  He  therefore  also  tells 
the  Father:  I  have  manifested  Thy  name  unto  the  men  which 
Thou  gavest  me  out  of  the  world.  Rom.  9:  So  then  those  are 
God's  children,  that  are  children  not  according  to  the  flesh, 
but  the  children  of  the  promise,  are  accounted  Abraham's  seed — 
i,  e.  God's  elect  Chuch.  Rom.  4:  Those  who  are  of  the  faith  of 
Abraham — i.  e.  all  those  who  believe  in  Christ,  as  Abraham  be- 
lieved, are  God's  elect  children.  John  1,  12:  As  many  as  re- 
ceived Christ,  to  them  He  gave  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God, 
even  to  them  that  believe  on  His  name.  John  10:  As  Christ 
again  declares:  My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and 
they  follow  me;  and  I  give  them  eternal  life.) 

(1)  And  the  elect  are  all  written  in  the  book  of  life.  (Pas- 
sages: Is.  49:  God  declares  concerning  the  elect:  Behold,  I 
have  graven  thee  upon  the  palms  of  my  hands.  Is.  4:  Every 
one  that  is  called  holy  is  written  among  the  living  in  Jerusalem  — 
i.  e.  all  believers,  to  whom  Christ's  holiness  is  imputed,  are  writ- 
ten among  the  number  of  the  elect.  John  10:  As  also  Christ 
declares:  I  know  my  sheep,  and  am  known  of  mine.  Luke  10: 
He  admonishes  them  for  this  reason:  Rejoice,  because  your 
names  are  written  in  heaven.  Rev.  20:  And  whosoever  was  not 
found  written  in  the  book  of  life  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.) 

(m)    This  book  of  life  is  Christ   Himself,  and,   as   it  were, 


Our  copy  contains  the  manuscript  note  in  the  margin: 

"He   that   believeth    is    elected; 
He  that  believeth  not,  rejected." 


Matthew  Vogel.  357 

is  opened  and  read  to  us  through  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel, 
so  that  the  elect  of  God  may  be  clearly  known  from  its  pages. 
(Passages:  Rev.  5:  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book  and  to 
open  the  seals  thereof  —  i.  e.  no  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time;  the  only  begotten  Son  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father 
hath  declared  Him  unto  us,  and  hath  commanded  His  apostles 
to  preach  in  all  the  world.) 

(n)  Those  who  now,  following  this  call,  admonition,  and 
declaration,  hear  the  Gospel  of  Christ  and  submit*  to  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  brought  to  faith  through  His  grace 
and  power  and  are  justified  through  faith.  Passages:  Sirach 
18,  10:  The  Lord  has  compassion  on  all  who  let  themselves 
be  drawn  (understand:  drawn  by  His  Spirit)  and  diligently  hear 
God's  Word.  Sir.  15:  Whosoever  keepeth  to  God's  Word  find- 
eth  wisdom.  Prov.  2:  When  wisdom  (God's  Holy  Word)  en- 
tereth  into  thine  heart,  and  knowledge  is  pleasant  unto  thy  soul, 
•discretion  shall  preserve  thee.  Acts  8:  The  eunuch  of  Ethiopia 
came  to  believe,  when  he  requested  Philip  to  sit  beside  him  in 
his  chariot  and  explain  the  prophet  Isaiah  to  him.  Acts  13: 
Nevertheless,  when  the  Gentiles  at  Antioch  and  in  Pisidia  heard 
Paul's  preaching,  they  were  glad  and  glorified  the  word  of  the 
Lord;  and  as  many  as  were  ordained  unto  eternal  life  believed. 
Rom.  8:  Whom  God  predestinated,  them  He  also  called  (through 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel);  and  whom  He  called  (of  the  num- 
ber of  the  elect  who  believe  the  Gospel),  them  He  also  justified 
•(for  their  faith  is  accounted  unto  them  for  righteousness).  Rom. 
10:  Whosoever  believeth  in  Christ  is  justified.  1  Tim.  G:  We 
are  to  lay  hold  on  eternal  life  whereunto  we  are  also  called. 
Phil.  3:  We  are  to  press  toward  the  mark  for  the  prize  of  the 
liigh  calling  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus.  Matt.  11:  He  declares: 
Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  are  weary  and  heavy  laden,  and  I 
will  give  you  rest.  John  6:  He  that  cometh  unto  me  I  will  in 
no  wise  cast  out." 

In  the  sixth  part  of  his  "Treasury,"  the  preface  to  which 
was  written  in  1586,  Matthew  Vogel,  the  faithful  pupil  of  Luther, 
treats  of  all  manner  of  trials,  and  among  these  also  of  trials 
"concerning  God's  predestination,"  namely  "in  what  way  Satan 

*  Evidently  this  expression  is  a  translation  of  the  Latin  expression 
frequently  used  by  our  Lutheran  theologians:  operationi  Spiritus  Sancti 
sese  submittunt  —  meaning  the  same  as  the  "remaining  passive"  of  Luther 
and  the  F.  C. 


358  Intuitu  Fidei. 

troubles  many  concerning  God's  eternal  predestination."  This 
troubling  Vogel  describes  as  follows:  "God,  in  His  secret  counsel^ 
has  chosen  a  little  flock  unto  eternal  life,  and  has  predestinated 
the  greater  number  unto  eternal  damnation.  As  a  semblance 
of  this  the  deceiving  spirit  misuses  Christ's  own  words,  when 
He  declares:  Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen.*  And  Matt. 
7:  Broad  is  the  way  that  leadeth  to  destruction,  and  many  there 
be  which  go  in  thereat.  Because  strait  is  the  gate,  and  narrow 
is  the  way,  which  leadeth  unto  life,  and  few  there  be  that  find  it. 
Since  then  they  are  among  the  number  of  the  damned,  all  that 
they  do  will  not  help  them,  for  they  cannot  be  saved.  Then 
the  tempter  also  brings  in  Paul's  words,  when  he  writes,  Rom.  9: 
So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth, 
but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy.  But  God  hath  mercy  on  whom 
He  will  have  mercy,  and  hardeneth  whom  He  will  harden.  And 
•the  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance  (God  does 
not  repent  of  them).  As  He  Himself  declares:  Surely,  as  I 
have  thought,  so  shall  it  come  to  pass;  and  as  I  have  purposed, 
so  shall  it  stand.  Is.  14."  So  far  Vogel's  description  of  the  trials 
concerning  predestination. 

•In  showing  how  these  temptations  of  the  enemy  may  be 
met  Vogel  proceeds,  first  of  all,  to  point  to  the  universal  gracious 
will  of  God  desiring  to  save  all  men.  According  to  the  form 
of  expression  used  widely  in  the  Lutheran  Church  at  that  time- 
he  terms  this  the  election  "of  men"  (i.  e.  of  all  men)  unto  salva- 
tion. To  be  sure,  this  would  make  the  hair  of  a  Missourian 
stand  on  end.  Here  we  would  have  —  just  think  of  it!  —  a  Hu- 
berian  before  the  appearance  of  Huber!  While  Samuel  Huber 
was  still  quietly  in  his  pastorate  in  Reformed  Switzerland,  a  man 
of  such  importance  as  this  theologian  of  the  F.  C,  this  pupil 
of  Luther,  M.  Vogel,  in  a  work  so  universally  accepted  (recom- 
mended even  by  Luke  Osiander,  the  elder)  —  in  a  work  spread 
generally  among  "candidates,  professors,  and  preachers"  of  the 

*  At  the  Colloquium  in  Milwaukee  (1881)  the  Missourians  could  not 
be  induced  to  discuss  this  passage  and  the  parables  of  Christ  connected 
with  it  (Matth.  20  and  22).  Prof.  Hoenecke  alone  had  the  courage  to  offer 
his  interpretation  "dripping  with  consolation."  The  words  meant  to  show, 
according  to  his  opinion,  "How  it  comes  that  now  in  time  some  go  on 
this  way  and  others  go  on  the  other"  —  it  is  according  as  they  have  either 
been  included  in  the  free  election,  or  excluded  from  it.  And  how  finely 
has  Prof.  Stoeckhardt  evaded,  up  to  the  present  day,  giving  an  answer  to 
our  questions  regarding  this  main  passage! 


Matthew  Vogel.  359 

Lutheran  Church  at  that  time  —  Vogel  teaches,  we  say,  an  elec- 
tion of  all  men  unto  salvation!  O  temporal  O  mores!  And 
where  now  were  the  Missourians  at  that  time?  Yea,  where  were 
they?  Had  not  8000  stalwart  Missourians  —  Missourians  above 
all  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination  —  just  signed  the  11th  article 
of  the  F.  C?  And  the  Lutheran  Church  (I  meant  to  say:  the 
Missouri  Synod  of  that  time)  had  it  not  just  adopted  most  sol- 
emnly this  its  final  confession,  closing  with  the  extended  article 
on  predestination  and  election!  Had  the  Missouri  Synod  of  that 
day  no  "organs"  at  all  who  could  have  enlightened  this  "Vogel" 
(bird)  on  the  fact,  that  his  bill  had  not  a  Lutheran,  but  a  syner- 
gistic and  rationalistic  twist  to  it?     How  awful!     How  sad! 

In  the  heading  already  our  dear  Luther- Vogel  (bird)  declares: 
"God  has  chosen  men  in  Christ."  His  first  proposition  is:  "Al- 
though God  predestinated  and  ordained  men  unto  eternal  sal- 
vation before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  —  And  here  the  pas- 
sages: "Eph.  1:  God  chose  men  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world.  Wis,  2:  And  created  them  unto  eternal  life.  2  Thess.  2: 
And  unto  salvation"  After  now  stating  that  God  "did  not  keep 
this  counsel  and  election  secret,  but  revealed  it  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Gospel,"  he  adds:  "which  (Gospel)  declares  that  God,  the 
eternal  Father,  chose  men  through  His  Son  Christ  alone,  and 
hence  did  not  wish  that  any  should  be  lost,  but  that  all  men 
should  be  saved  through  Christ."  And  here  again  passages  like : 
"Eph.  1:  God  chose  us  men  through  Christ.  1  Thess.  5:  And 
appointed  us  not  unto  wrath,  but  to  obtain  salvation.  1  Tim.  2: 
Who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  come  unto  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth.  Ps.  145:  The  Lord  is  good  to  all.  1  John  4:  And 
sent  His  Son  to  be  the  Savior  of  the  world,  etc.  God  therefore 
also,  because  all  men  have  sinned,  sent  His  Son  into  the  world 
for  them  as  a  Savior,  that  He  should  sufifer  for  the  sins  of  all 
men."  (In  the  margin:  "Christ  the  Savior  of  all  the  world.") 
"What  gross  Huberianism!" — all  Missouri  here  exclaims 
in  consternation.  But,  my  dear  sirs,  do  not  go  so  fast!  Neither 
the  Word  of  God  nor  the  Confession  of  our  Church  is  a  friend 
of  wars  and  disputes  about  mere  words.*     The  fact,  that  a  writer 


*  The  Scriptures  say:  "Charge  them  before  the  Lord  that  they  strive 
not  about  words  to  no  profit,  but  to  the  subverting  of  the  hearers."  2  Tim. 
2,  14;  cf.  1  Tim.  6,  4.  The  Confession  declares  "that  a  distinction  in  every 
way  should  and  must  be  observed  between,  on  the  one  hand,  unnecessary 
and  useless  wrangling,  whereby,  since  it  scatters  more  than  it  builds  up,. 


360  Intuitu  Fidei. 

speaks  of  the  election  of  all  men  is  by  no  means  proof,  that  he 
holds  a  false  faith  or  teaches  false  doctrine.  His  "mode  of  expres- 
sion" may  indeed  be  more  or  less  "unfortunately  chosen,"  de- 
fective, and  wrong,  and  yet  he  may  be  altogether  free  from  doc- 
trinal error  and  perfectly  pure  in  faith.  Here  the  advice  would 
apply:  Sententiam  teneat,  linguam  corrigat!  Keep  the  sense, 
correct  the  language.  Indeed,  he  may  even  misapply  single 
passages  of  Scripture,  and  refer  and  extend  what  is  said  of  be- 
lievers as  such,  according  to  his  idea,  to  all  men,  and  still  he 
may  not  at  all  be  a  false  teacher,  because  his  meaning  is  still 
scriptural  and  orthodox. 

Our  Luther-Vogel  evidently  understands  by  the  election 
of  men  God's  unlimited  will  of  grace  and  salvation  as  it  applies 
without  a  difference  seriously  and  honestly  to  all  men.  As  Lu- 
ther, his  teacher,  himself  said:  "It  is  God's  earnest  will  and  opin- 
ion and  command,  decreed  from  eternity,*  to  save  all  men  and  to 
make  them  partakers  of  eternal  joys,  as  Ezek.  18  clearly  declares: 
God  desireth  not  the  death  of  a  sinner,  but  that  he  may  turn 
from  his  wickedness  and  live.  If  now  He  desires  to  save  the 
sinners  that  live  and  move  everywhere  under  the  wide,  high 
heavens,  you  should  not  allow  yourselves  to  be  separated  and  cut 
ofif  from  God's  grace  through  your  own  foolish  thoughts  inspired 
by  the  devil.  For  His  grace  reaches  and  stretches  from  the 
rising  to  the  setting  sun,  from  noon-day  unto  midnight,  and  over- 
shadows all  who  turn  and  are  truly  contrite  and  repentant  and 

make  themselves  partakers  of  His  mercy  and  seek  help 

(Hence  we  are  to)  remember  that  God  Almighty  created,  pre- 
destinated, and  also  elected  us,t  not  unto  destruction,  but  unto 

the  Church  ought  not  to  be  disturbed,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  necessary 
controversy,  as  when  such  a  controversy  occurs  as  involves  the  articles  of 
faith  or  the  chief  heads  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  where  for  the  defense  of 
the  truth  the  false  opposite  doctrine  must  be  reproved."  (Mueller,  572,  15 
—  Jacobs'  Translation,  p.  538,  15.)  "Also  to  avoid  strife  about  words, 
equivocal  terms,  i.  e.  words  and  expressions,  which  may  be  understood 
and  used  in  several  senses,  should  be  carefully  and  distinctly  explained." 
(M.  584,  51  —  J.  548,  51.)  To  these  "words  and  expressions"  belongs  the 
term  "election,  predestination"  and  similar  expressions,  which  are  em- 
ployed in  an  orthodox  manner  and  yet  "understood  and  used  in  several 
senses."     He  who  here  distinguishes  best,  will  teach  best. 

*  God  "decreed"  to  save  all  men  is  an  expression  just  as  strong  as: 
God  has  "chosen"  them  to  salvation.  Both  expressions  indeed  say  the 
same  thing. 

■f  Meaning  us  men,  all  men,  as  is  shown  by  what  follows. 


Matthew  Vogel.  -361 

salvation,  as  Paul  testifies  ad  Ephes.  (1,  4*);  and  we  dare  not 
begin  to  dispute  concerning  God's  predestination  from  the  Law 
•or  from  reason,  but  from  the  grace  of  God  and  the  Gospel  which 
is  proclaimed  to  all  men.  As  the  angels  preached  the  first  ser- 
mon to  the  shepherds  in  the  fields,  also  figured  in  4  parts:  Glory 
to  God  in  the  highest,  peace  on  earth  and  good  will  toward 
men.  .  .  .  Hence  we  are  to  judge  and  estimate  these  and  similar 
thoughts  concerning  God's  predestination  from  the  Word  of  the 
grace  and  mercy  of  God,  the  Lord." 

Note  well,  "we  are  to  judge  and  estimate  these  and  similar 
thoughts  concerning  God's  predestination"  from  the  Word  of 
universal  grace,  as  the  Gospel  reveals  this  grace  applying  to  all 
men  and  extending  over  all.  But,  says  Missouri,  predestination 
is  "a  thing  entirely  different"  from  the  universal  will  of  grace 
revealed  in  the  Gospel!  The  two  "indeed  do  not  harmonize," 
and  therefore  the  one  cannot  be  judged  and  estimated  according 
to  the  other!  —  But  what  does  it  profit?  Father  Luther  here 
tells  us  clearly  and  distinctly  that  our  thoughts  concerning  the 
particularity  of  election  must  be  judged  according  to  the  universal 
Word  of  grace.  If  in  this  he  does  not  agree  with  infallible  St. 
Louis,  this  may  be  bad  for  him;  but  his  clear  words  cannot  be 
garbled.  He  afterwards  proceeds  even  to  state  how  he  wants 
this  "judging  and  estimating"  to  be  understood,  for  he  tells  us: 
'*In  this  way  you  can  distinguish  truly  and  speak  exphcitly:  If 
you  will  acceptf  the  Gospel  and  the  Word  of  God,  and  hold  to 
it,  and  make  yourself  a  partaker  of  its  assurances,  and  adhere 
to  this  till  the  end,  then  you  will  be  saved;  if  not,  you  will  be 
damned  in  eternity,  2  Tim.  2,  (12).  .  .  .  Blessed  are  they  who  gov- 
ern themselves  according  to  it,  and  comfort  themselves  by  it, 
and  adhere  to  it  till  the  end,  whereby  we  receive  the  grace  of 
the  Lord,  if  we  comfort  ourselves  from  it."     (De  Wette,  Luther's 


*  Luther  here  states  two  things:  not  only  (1)  that  God  on  His  part 
(i.  e.  according  to  His  fatherly,  gracious  mind)  "created,  predestinated, 
and  also  elected  all  men  unto  salvation";  but  also  (2)  that  Paul  "testifies 
in  Eph.  1,  4"  to  this.  It  does  seem  as  though  our  dear  M.  Vogel  had  been 
a  careful  and  faithful  pupil  of  Luther.  But  what  must  here  be  the  judg- 
ment of  St.  Louis  in  regard  to  Luther! 

t  This,  in  its  way,  is  dependent  even  on  man's  conduct,  as  Luther  de- 
clares shortly  before  this  passage,  where  he  writes:  "Let  every  man  sweep 
before  his  own  door,  then  we  will  all  be  saved,  and  there  will  be  no  need 
of  cudgeling  our  brains  in  regard  to  what  God  has  decreed,  who  is  to  be 
saved  and  who  not." 


362  Intuitu  Fidei. 

Letters,  3,355,  etc.)  The  "correct  idea"  concerning  predestina- 
tion is,  according  to  Lutlier,  to  be  judged  and  concluded  from 
the  Gospel  by  means  of  a  condidtional  proposition:  1)  If  a  sin- 
ner believes  in  Christ  and  perseveres  to  the  end,  he  shall  be 
saved;  2)  if  not,  he  shall  be  excluded  from  the  "election  unto 
salvation."  By  faith  alone  a  man  may,  as  far  as  his  person  is 
concerned,  enter  the  election  unto  adoption  and  inheritance,  or 
become  a  partaker  of  this  election,  according  to  the  eternal  de- 
cree. By  unbelief  alone  can  he  remain  excluded  from  this  elec- 
tion, or  exclude  himself.  For  the  Gospel  offers  Christ  Himself 
to  all  men,  and  in  Him  also  adoptioai,  inheritance,  election  and 
salvation.  For  this  reason  also  the  Formula  of  Concord  declares: 
1)  that  God  "determined"  to  receive  unto  adoption  and  inherit- 
ance of  eternal  life  "all  who  accept  Christ  by  true  faith";  2)  that 
He  "determined"  in  this  election  unto  adoption  and  inheritance, 
at  the  same  time  "to  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowledge 
His  Son  Christ";  3)  that  therefore  God  "directs  all  men  to  Christ 
as  the  true  Book  of  Life,  in  whom  they  should  seek  election"; 
4)  as  also  this  election  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel  (viz.  John  6,  40; 
,3,  16);  yea  5)  "promised  not  in  mere  words"  alone,  but  even 
"secured  by  an  oath  and  sealed  by  the  Holy  Sacraments."  Evi- 
dently this  speaks  of  election  as  made  possible  for  all  in  Christ, 
and  as  therefore  also  possible  in  regard  to  all  men  (conditionally) : 
"If  you  believe,  you  shall  be  saved;  if  not,  you  remain  under 
wrath."  And  since  God's  inmost  heart  and  mind  in  its  grace 
and  love,  which  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  would  save 
all,  here  embraces  all  without  distinction  and  excludes  no  one 
from  "election  unto  salvation"  by  dislike,  therefore  Luther  and 
many  other  faithful  Lutheran  theologians  after  him  speak  of  "an 
election  of  all  men"  on  the  part  of  God.  Something  like  we  would 
say  to-day:  He  who  would  gladly  forgive  another  has  really  al- 
ready forgiven  him  in  his  heart,  namely  as  far  as  his  own  disposi- 
tion and  the  thought  of  his  heart  is  concerned.  So  also  here:  Since 
God  earnestly  and  most  heartily  desires  to  elect  and  ordain  untO' 
eternal  salvation  in  Christ,  His  Son,  all  men  without  exception 
and  distinction,  the  one  like  the  other,  therefore,  according  to 
His  own  grace  and  love.  He  has  excluded  no  one  in  the  beginning 
from  His  election,  but  has  left  this  election  open  for  all  alike, 
brought  it  nigh  unto  all,  and  on  His  part  made  it  possible  for 
them  all  to  be  actually  elected.  "To  desire  to  elect  all  unto  salva- 
tion" in  the  sense  of  "to  desire  heartily  to  ordain  and  predesti- 


Matthexv  Vogel.  363 

nate  all  unto  salvation"  (without  the  idea  of  selection  or  separa- 
tion from  others  who  are  not  elected)  is  in  fact  a  certain  kind  of 
election,  ordination,  and  predestination  in  regard  to  all,  namely 
in  so  far  as  all  should  and  can  be  saved  "in  Christ"  and  "through 
faith,"  as  far  as  God's  grace  has  to  provide  for  their  saving  and 
can  and  will  provide  for  it. 

It  need  not,  therefore,  surprise  us  to  find  the  expression: 
God  has  "elected  men  unto  salvation,"  used  frequently  in  the 
Lutheran  Church  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, and  even  to  some  extent  after  its  adoption  before  the  con- 
troversy with  Huber.  Even  then  already  the  question  was  var- 
iously investigated,  whether  election  in  general  should  be  re- 
garded as  universal  or  as  particular.  In  a  "Norm"  of  the  doc- 
trine, published  in  1563,  we  read  for  instance:  "All  men  are 
surely  and  truly  elected  unto  eternal  life  by  the  pure  grace  and 
mercy  of  God  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.* 

In  the  following  year  (1564)  there  arose  a  controversy  at 
Erfurt  on  the  question,  whether  it  is  proper  to  say:  All  men  are 
elected,  or:  only  some  are  elected.  Just  think  of  it!  In  1564, 
when,  as  we  are  told,  Missouri's  so-called  "first  type  of  doctrine" 
'  held  undisputed  sway  throughout  the  Church,  this  question 
could  arise  in  Erfurt!  And  who  is  it  that  defends  the  universality 
of  election?  In  the  van  we  find  Andrew  Poach,  who  had  studied 
and  become  Magister  at  Wittenberg  under  Luther,  who  had  then 
served  as  pastor  in  Halle,  Jena,  Nordhausen,  and  had  been  sta- 
tioned at  Erfurt  in  1550-1572,  who  had  also  signed  the  F.  C.  at 
Utenbach  near  Jena ;  he  died  in  1585  (according  to  some  not  till 
1605).  Here  again  one  of  the  men  who,  like  Vogel  himself,  had 
learned  to  know  Luther's  doctrine  and  spirit  personally  by  hear- 
ing him  themselves,  and  who  now  found  Luther's  doctrine  re- 
peated faithfully  in  the  F.  C.  with  its  strong  universality  of  saving 
grace.  Besides  Poach,  Pistorius  names  Magister  G.  Silberschlag 
and  L.  Palhofer,  designating  their  position  as  the  "Erfurt  Minis- 
terium."  In  Palhofer's  defense  we  find  the  following  explana- 
tions: 

"We  must  accept  no  election  outside  of  the  Word,  none  save 
that  which  takes  place  through  the  Word;  namely  that  God  has 
elected,  without  regard  to  persons,  those  who  hear  His  Word  and 


*  See  Piscator:    Comment,  in  F.  C.  p.  473,  to  whom  we  are  beholden 
for  the  following  remarks.     Cf.  p.  654. 


364  Intiiihi  Fidei. 

believe  in  Christ,*  not  by  virtue  of  their  free  will,  but  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  God  added  to  the  Word  and  gives  by 
the  Word  to  those  who  hear  and  pray  therefor.  But  for  those 
who  do  not  hear  and  believe  God  is  not  to  be  blamed.  We  are 
told:  I  would,  but  ye  would  not.  I  have  called  thee  by  my 
Word;  if  thou  hadst  heard  and  believed  my  Word,  thou  wouldst 
also  have  been  among  the  elect;  because  thou  didst  despise  the 
Word,  thou  are  reprobate." 

Furthermore:  "In  regard  to  predestination,  whether  it  is  uni- 
versalis or  particidaris,  that  is  whether  God  would  have  all  men 
or  not  all  to  be  saved  in  Christ,  we  must  not  form  our  judgment 
and  decision  according  to  human  reason  or  thoughts,  nor  out- 
side of  the  Gospel. "f  "Consequently,  the  open  and  revealed  pre- 
destination is  not  particularis,.  but  universalis,  it  applies  to  the 
whole  world  and  all  men;  yet  it  is  conditionalis,  conditione  auditus 
verbi  et  fidei  et  perseverantiae  sive  constantiae"(  i.  e.  it  is  condi- 
tional, under  the  condition  of  hearing  the  Word,  of  faith,  and  of 
perseverance  or  constancy).  "We  are  told:  Blessed  are  they 
that  hear  the  Word  of  God  and  keep  it,  Luke  11.     He  that  be- 


*  It  appears  clearly  that  these  champions  of  the  universality  of  election, 
before  the  time  of  Huber,  did  not  wish  to  have  this  universality  put  in  op- 
position to  the  election  of  believers  as  such,  but  only  in  opposition  to  an 
absolute,  unconditional,  regardless  particularization  or  limitation  of  elec- 
tion. They  meant  to  maintain  the  doctrine,  that,  according  to  God's  will, 
salvation  itself  as  well  as  election  thereunto  is  intended  alike  for  all  men 
and  open  for  all.  And  we  to-day  want  the  same  thing  together  with  the 
whole  Lutheran  Church,  as  it  clearly  confessed  this  truth  already  in,  the 
F.  C.  and  afterwards  defended  it  so  zealously  against  all  "covert"  particu- 
larism in  God's  will  of  grace.  Missouri,  however,  in  reality  destroys  the 
universality  of  "electing  grace"  by  its  particularism. 

t  For  these  faithful  defenders  of  the  perfect  universal  will  of  grace  the 
two  propositions  in  the  end  mean  the  same  thing:  "God  would  have  all 
men  to  be  saved",  and:  "Predestination  in  Christ  is  universal",  that  is 
according  to  God's  intention.  On  His  part  election  is  open  for  all,  and  in 
Him  no  particularity  has  been  added  by  or  according  to  another  secret  will 
or  counsel  of  God.  The  particularity  of  election  is  based  on  the  universal 
will  of  grace  and  flows  of  necessity  from  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation. 
He  who  teaches  that  God's  will  and  His  decree  "do  not  harmonize',  that 
the  latter  (the  decree  regarding  the  bestowal  of  salvation)  in  general  "ap- 
plies only  to  a  few  persons",  thereby  actually  teaches  that  at  bottom,  speak- 
ing properly,  God  "would  not  have  all  men  to  be  saved",  for  He  would 
never  decree  their  salvation!  Thus,  for  instance  Heshus  wrote  against  the 
synergists:  "God  does  not  want  all  to  be  saved,  for  (!)  He  did  not  elect 
all,  nor  does  He  draw  all  by  His  grace."     Alas! 


Matthew  Vogel.  365 

lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  Mark  16.  He  that  is  faith- 
ful till  the  end  shall  be  saved.  Behold,  this  is  revealed  predesti- 
nation: All  who  believe  are  saved;  those  who  do  not  believe 
are  damned.  We  speak  here  of  God's  revealed  will,  how  God 
would  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  not  nude  et  absolutely  (not  sim- 
ply and  absolutely),  but  through  the  hearing  of  the  Word  of  God 
and  the  use  of  the  Sacraments." 

In  1576  this  question  concerning  the  universality  or  partic- 
ularity of  election  again  became  an  object  of  controversy,  this 
time  in  the  Braunschweig-Lueneburg  province  of  Prince  Wolf- 
gang, between  court-preacher  Rustenus,  who  maintained  the  uni- 
versality, and  John  Sinderam  and  the  preachers  at  Osterode,  who 
attacked  it.  At  the  request  of  the  Prince,  Martin  Chemnitz  issued 
an  opinion.  In  this  opinion  he  begins  by  saying  concerning  the 
question  "Whether  predestination  or  election  is  universal  or 
particular,"  the  following:  "Now  as  far  as  my  person  is  con- 
cerned I  would  not,  nor  could  I,  give  a  categorical  answer  to  such 
a  bare,  mutilated,  dangerous  question,  because  much  is  concealed 
behind  it"  (!).  He  then  refers  to  the  fact  that  in  the  same  year 
(1576)  at  the  convention  in  Torgau,  during  the  discussions  on  the 
Concordia,  "the  same  subject  came  up,  and  one  man  wanted  to 
contend  that  predestination  and  election  is  universal,  that  all  men 
are  predestinated  and  chosen  of  God  unto  eternal  salvation." 
Chemnitz  proceeds  to  give  the  reasons  why  this  mode  of  expres- 
sion was  not  accepted,  and  then  continues:  "Besides  this,  at 
the  same  convention  in  Torgau,  it  was  duly  considered  that  when 
on  the  other  hand,  predestination  is  simply,  and  without  necessary 
and  sufficient  explanation,  said  to  be  particular,  or  to  be  under- 
stood as  particular,  this  also  is  dangerous,  making  it  appear  as 
though  it  were  God's  will  and  intention  that  He  would  not  have 
all  men  to  be  saved.  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  avoid  such  bare, 
dangerous  terms  on  both  sides,  and  to  speak  so  as  not  to  cause 
offense  as  the  article  concerning  predestination  is  explained  in 
all  simplicity  in  the  same  Formula  (Concordiae)."  In  conclusion, 
he  mentions  that  already  "two  years  ago  he  heard  that  some  in 
the  province  were  contending  that  God's  predestination  and  elec- 
tion unto  eternal  life  belongs  universally  to  all  men,  and  that  he 
who  would  not  at  once  accept  the  paradoxical  proposition  was 
pushed  out."* 

*  It  all  depends  on  the  sense  in  which  these  defenders  of  the  univer- 
sality of  election  wanted  to  have  this  understood  and  refused  to  tolerate 


366  Intuitu  Fidei. 

These  and  similar  discussions  concerning  the  relation  be- 
tween "electing  grace"  and  the  particular  elective  decree  throw 
an  important  light  on  the  F.  C.  The  universal  counsel  of  grace 
and  the  special  decree  of  salvation  are  not  torn  asunder,  after  the 
manner  of  Missouri,  as  two  entirely  different  and  contradictory 
things;  on  the  contrary  they  were  set  forth  as  being  intimately 
interwoven  and  joined  together,  yea,  as  being  in  a  certain  sense 
"one  and  the  same  thing."  For  the  predestination  of  those  who 
accept  Christ,  unto  eternal  life,  flows  naturally  from  the  universal 
will  of  grace  and  constitutes  (God's  omniscience  being  added)  an 
essential  part  of  the  universal  counsel  of  grace.  The  F.  C.  takes 
as  its  foundation  for  the  "idea  of  election"  the  universal  will  of 
grace,  the  universal  redemption,  and  the  universal  call;  as  the 
essential  contents  of  election  the  F.  C.  takes  explicitly  God's  re- 
gard to  the  fact  whether  the  called  accept  Christ  in  faith  and 
faithfully  use  the  grace  received,  or  whether  in  conversion  or  per- 
severance they  "foreclose  the  ordinary  way  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
so  that  He  cannot  effect  His  work  in  them."  From  the  very  start, 
therefore,  election  on  God's  part,  according  to  the  F.  C,  is  just 
as  open  for  all  men  as  salvation  itself,  and  all  men  are  directed  to 
Christ  as  the  true  "Book  of  Life"  also  for  election.  God  earn- 
estly desires  to  save  all,  hence  also  to  elect  all  in  Christ  unto  sal- 
vation. The  elective  grace  of  God  is  not  in  its  nature  a  mere 
particular  or  special  grace,  which  in  itself  "pertains  only  to  some 
sinners,"  from  which  accordingly  all  others  are  unconditionally 
excluded.  No;  the  particularity  of  the  act  of  election  or  of  the 
decree  of  election  rests  only  on  this,  that  God,  in  exercising  the 
grace  which  ordains  unto  eternal  life,  looks  into  the  future  and 
there  foresees  that  so  many  of  the  called  "do  not  conduct  them- 
selves so  that  He  can  have  pleasure  in  them,"  in  particular  that 
they  do  not  permit  themselves  to  be  brought  by  His  grace  unto 
faith  in  Christ. 

We  now  return  to  our  dear  Luther- Vogel,  who  as  a  promi- 
nent F.  C.  theologian  strongly  emphasizes  the  universality  of 
"electing  grace,"  and  who  therefore  does  not  explain  the  limited 
number  of  the  elect  with  Calvin  and  Missouri  by  saying,  that  in 
the  case  of  so  many  millions  God  did  not  do  something  necessary 

contention  against  it.  Heshus  and  Hoffman  in  Braunschweig  were  indeed 
strict  predestinarians  and  came  out  far  more  honestly  and  openly  with 
their  particularization  of  really  saving  grace  than  Missouri  to-day  dares. 


Matthezv  Vogel.  367 

for  their  salvation,  althoug-h  He  "could  have  done  it  just  as  easily 
as  in  the  case  of  the  elect,"  if  only  He  had  so  willed. 

Vogel  tells  us:  "As  far  as  the  passages  are  concerned,  say- 
ing that  only  few  are  chosen,  they  (who  are  troubled)  are  to  take 
these  passages  only  as  a  complaint,  that,  although  God  ofifers 
His  Son  Christ  to  all  men,  all  do  not  accept  Him  by  faith,  but 
only  a  few,  and  so  the  greater  multitude  of  men  exclude  and  sepa- 
rate themselves  from  the  number  of  the  elect  through  Satan's  in- 
stigation and  through  unbelief."*  (Passages:  Have  they  not 
heard?  Yes  verily,  their  sound  went  into  all  the  earth,  and  their 
words  unto  the  ends  of  the  world.  But  they  have  not  all  obeyed 
the  Gospel.  Rom.  10.  Many  cast  the  Word  of  God  away  and 
do  not  account  themselves  worthy  of  eternal  life.  How  oft  would 
I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  but  ye  would  not.)  "By 
all  this  such  troubled  persons  should  be  moved  to  call  upon  God 
and  cry  unto  Him  more  diligently,  that  God  who  called  them  may 
also  work  in  them  true  faith  in  Christ  through  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel.  And  because  God  cannot  and  will  not  refuse  such 
prayers,  they  should  thereafter  be  certain  from  this  their  faith 
that  they  truly  belong  to  the  number  of  the  elect."  (Passages: 
Ye  are  the  chosen  generation,  etc.)  Since  God  has  by  no  means 
concealed,  but  revealed  clearly  in  the  Gospel,  that  they  who  be- 
lieve in  His  Son  are  surely  the  elect."  (Passages:  The  children 
of  the  promise  are  counted  Abraham's  seed,  as  being  of  Abra- 
ham's faith,  who  together  with  Abraham  believe  God's  promise, 
etc.)  "All  believers  are  God's  elect" — is  found  in  large  letters  ni 
t"he  margin,  and  following  this,  instructions  how  these  behevers 
are  to  conduct  themselves,  "and  at  the  same  time,  as  is  exceed- 


*  When  Missourians  teach  on  the  one  hand,  that  God  has  not  chosen 
so  many  men  unto  salvation  only  because  of  their  unbelief,  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  in  the  actual  election  He  did  not  at  all  look  for,  seek,  or 
inquire  about  faith,  they  evidently  say  "Yea  and  Nay"  in  one  breath.  For 
what  does  it  mean  that  God  "has  not  chosen  because  of  unbelief",  but  that 
He  sought  very  closely  and  looked  for  faith,  and  that  because  He  did  not 
find  the  faith  He  sought  He  now  also  will  not  elect  these?  Or  does  Mis- 
souri intend  in  all  seriousness  to  teach  this  as  a  most  sacred  Missourian 
mystery  of  faith,  that  also  in  the  case  of  the  non-elect,  when  it  came  to 
election,  God  (1)  did  not  at  all  seek  and  inquire  for  their  faith,  but  (2)  did 
not  elect  them  only  because  He  did  not  find  the  faith  for  which  He  did 
not  at  all  seek?  Where  in  the  Bible  is  this  remarkable  article  of  faith  to 
be  found?     Perhaps  in  Paul's  second  Epistle  to  the  Romans? 


368  bituitu  Fidei. 

ingly  necessary,  how  they  should  pray  to  God  that  He  may  gra- 
ciously keep  them  in  the  number  of  the  elect."* 


CONCLUDING    REMARKS. 

We  have,  according  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge  and  ability,, 
introduced  the  powerful  testimony  of  the  faithful  F.  C.  theologians 
of  our  Church  as  fully  as  possible.  It  is  true,  the  voice  of  our 
Church,  taking  it  formally  and  in  an  ofHcially  authentic  way,  is 
only  the  Confession  itself.  If  now,  however,  after  300  years  of 
unanimity  in  understanding  this  Confession  on  the  part  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  a  bad  controversy  arises  and  a  fanatical  party 
makes  its  appearance  in  the  Church,  which  with  lofty  mien  and 
derisive  side-glance  upon  the  poor  "fathers  fallen  from  the  Scrip- 
tures and  the  Symbol"  presumptuously  asserts  that  now  it  has 
discovered  and  brought  to  light  the  only  "genuine,"  correct  sense 
of  the  Lutheran  Confession  from  out  of  the  infinite  rubbish 
covering  it  hitherto,  then  assuredly  it  is  time  to  go  back  to  the 
Church  which  adopted  the  Confession  itself  and  made  this  Con- 
fession its  own.  Common  sense  will  demand  this  in  such  a 
case.  If  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  a  congregation,  synod, 
or  church  held  to  a  certain  interpretation  of  certain  points  of 
a  document,  which  it  adopted  as  an  expression  of  its  meaning 
or  of  its  faith,  then  this  demonstrable  sense  is  in  reality  the 
sense  of  the  Confession  in  the  mouth  of  this  church  on  the  point 
concerned.  Even  if  the  words  and  sentences,  as  they  stand  in 
the  confession  itself,  could  be  taken  in  a  different  sense,  this 
Avill  not  be  the  sense  of  the  confession  in  the  mouth  of  the  church 
which  adopted  the  confession  and  for  300  years  understood,  in- 

*  Compare  with  this  earlier  "type  of  doctrine",  which  simply  declares: 
"He  that  believeth  is  God's  elect  child",  the  F.  C.  in  many  passages  where 
believers  and  elect  are  spoken  of  as  the  same  persons  and  the  two  words 
are  taken  as  synonymous.  Mueller,  p.  610,  2  (cf.  4  and  16).  —  622,  54.  — 
641.  6  (cf,  4.  7.  9).  —  532,  1.3.  14  (cf.  10.  11.  19).  —  711,  31.  —  719.  73.  —  715, 
50.  —  The  same  passages  are  found  in  Jacobs'  Translation,  p  570,  2  (cf.  4 
and  16).  —  579,  54.  —  596,  6  (cf.  4.  7.  9).  —  505,  13.  14  (cf.  10.  11.  19).  — 
655,  31.  —  622,  73.  —  658,  50.  —  As  also  Missouri  still  sings: 

"I  rejoice  that  I   still  remain 
In  Thy  elect  body 
A  living  rib." 

(Verse  3  of  :    "Wie  schoen  leucht't"  etc.) 


Co7ichcding  Remarks.  369 

terpreted,  and  defended  it  in  essentially  the  same  sense  and 
signification.  We  do  not  by  this  admit  that  the  language  of 
the  Confession  actually  has  or  can  have  a  sense  different  from 
that  which  the  F.  C.  theologians  themselves  and  their  faithful 
pupils  and  followers  found  in  it.  On  the  contrary,  for  ourselves 
we  are  firmly  convinced  that  the  Confession  itself,  when  it  is 
not  arbitrarily  cut  up,  and  its  separate  parts  torn  from  their  con- 
nection are  not  pressed  in  a  onesided  way,  but  when  the  whole  of  it 
according  to  all  its  parts  is  reviewed  and  judged  in  its  unity, 
contains  exactly  the  doctrine  which  the  F.  C.  theologians  them- 
selves, as  also  their  faithful  followers,  set  forth  as  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  and  as  the  sense  of  the  Lutheran  Con- 
fession. Missouri,  however,  selects  its  proof  passages  from  the 
Confession  arbitrarily  as  they  best  fit  her  purpose,  and  fails 
entirely  to  consider  the  other  passages  as  also  the  real  intention 
(scopus)  of  the  Confession.  Here  now  we  appeal  to  the 
"fathers"  and  say:  It  will  not  do  to  put  a  doctrine  into  the 
Confession  of  which  the  Church  at  that  time  knew  noth- 
ing and  wanted  to  know  nothing,  a  doctrine  which  this 
very  Church  according  to  its  unanimjous  testimony  rejected 
and  assailed  as  Calvinistic  and  false;  we  protest  in  the  name 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  against  interpreting  her  Confession 
otherwise  than  she  herself  understood  and  interpreted  it  at  the 
time  of  its  adoption  and  300  years  thereafter.  And  no  authori- 
tive  declarations,  no  strokes  of  violence  will  change  the  facts. 
The  true  sense,  the  genuine  and  correct  sense  of  the  11th  article 
of  the  F.  C.  is  not  the  sense  which  some  great  or  small  personage 
of  the  19th  centviry  may  construe  out  of  it  or  interpret  into  it, 
but  the  simple  sense  Vvdiich  the  Lutheran  Church  at  the  time 
and  since  that  time  actually  connected  with  this  article  and  set 
forth  and  defended  as  its  true  meaning.  What,  for  instance, 
might  not  be  set  up  as  the  sense  of  the  10th  article  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  (especially  of  the  words:  "under  the  form  of 
bread  and  wine"!),  if  the  contemporaneous  testimony  of  the 
Church  did  not  furnish  the  clearest  documentary  proof  of  what 
was  then  meant  by  these  words?  And  the  same  thing  applies 
to  many  another  case. 

Hence  Grauer  already  declared,  and  his  words  are  fully 
justified:  "The  Calvinists  would  like  to  interpret  the  sense  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  according  to  the  doctrinal  opinions 
of  its  author,   Phil.   Melanchthon.     But  why  this?     Philip  was 


370  Inhdtu  Fidei. 

no  Calvitiist  at  this  time.  The  sense  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion is  that  which  was  pubHcIy  heard  at  the  time  in  the  churches 
of  the  Protestants."*  We  to-day  say  the  same  thing  in  regard 
to  the  sense  and  meaning  of  the  11th  article  of  the  F.  C. :  That 
is  the  genuine,  correct,  and  only  valid  sense  and  meaning  of 
the  11th  article  as  a  Lutheran  Confession  concerning  predesti- 
nation, which  was  heard  publicly  at  that  time  in  the  schools 
and  churches,  in  the  universities  and  published  writings  of  the 
F.  C.  theologians  and  congregations.  Defiance  to  Missouri  and 
its  haughty  reformation !  What  can  it  say?  Will  it  say:  "O,  dear 
people,  the  theologians  and  churches  of  that  time  were  still  far 
behind  as  concerns  a  clear  view  of  this  difficult  doctrine;  a  man 
like  Pieper  now,  like  Stoeckhardt,  to  say  nothing  of  Dr.  Wal- 
ther  in  the  capacity  of  Chief  Reformer  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy 
knows  far  better  what  was  the  orthodox  sense  of  the  Confession 
which  the  Church  then  adopted;  the  Church  at  that  time  was 
simply  mistaken  in  this  matter;  whether  you  take  Rostock  with 
its  aged  Chytrgeus  as  the  last  co-author  of  the  Confession,  or 
Tuebingen  with  Andrege  as  the  most  prominent  author  of  this 
article,  or  Wittenberg,  or  Leipzig,  or  Jena,  or  Marburg,  or 
Strassburg,  all  indeed  otherwise  altogether  honorable  'organs' 
of  the  Church,  to  say  nothing  of  a  large  number  of  individuals, 
but — they  have  one  and  all  simply  misunderstood  their  solemn 
Confession;  what  they  conceived  to  be  the  sense  of  the  Confes- 
sion and  meant  to  subscribe  was  not  its  real  sense  at  all;  on  the 
contrary,  the  actual  sense  of  the  Symbol  they  adopted  and  sub- 
scribed was  a  doctrine  which  they  (alas!),  having  already  'fallen 
away  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Symbol,'  assailed  and  re- 
jected."—  It  may  be  that  Missouri  sprinkles  odorous  frankin- 
cense for  itself  and  its  church-idols  in  such  stinking  boasts. 
This  is  a  matter  of  taste.  We  continue  to  remember  John  5,  21, 
and  prefer  not  to  take  part  in  such  apings  of  Luther,  holding 
to  this:  "The  sense  of  the  11th  article  of  the  F.  C.  is  that  which 
was  publicly  heard  at  that  time  from  one  end  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  to  the  other."t 

The  subsequent  Church  merely  followed  in  the  footsteps 
of  the  F.  C.  theologians  themselves,  and,  as  far  as  the  substance 
of  the  doctrine  is  concerned,  did  not  add  or  modify  away  one 


*  Is  est   sensus   Augustanae   Confessionis,    qui   turn  tempori   sonabat 
publice  in  Ecclesiis  Protestantium.     Praelect.  in  A.  C.  p  1. 

t  Fiat  justitia,  pereat  mundus!     (Right  must  ever  remain  right.) 


Concludi?ig  Remarks.  371 

mite  of  it.  Especially  in  the  great  cardinal  question,  whether 
God  elected  and  ordained  unto  salvation  sinners  as  such  —  i.  e. 
still  lying  by  nature  altogether  in  the  universal  depravity,  like 
all  the  rest  still  beheld  without  repentance,  without  faith,  and 
without  perseverance  —  or  sinners  as  believers  in  the  Savior^ 
on  this  the  F.  C.  theologians  and  the  subsequent  "fathers"  and 
the  Confession  are  in  perfect  agreement.  Not  the  slightest  devi- 
ation can  be  detected.  The  controversy  with  Huber  furnished 
direct  occasion  for  ventilating  this  question  especially.  Not 
satisfied  with  the  ready  admission  from  the  Lutheran  standpoint 
that  God  would  save,  and  in  so  far  also  elect,  all  men,  and  that 
this  had  been  hitherto  now  and  then  after  his  manner  termed 
a  universal  election  of  all  men,  and  could  still  be  so  termed  with- 
out heresy,  Huber  wanted  to  assert  an  absolute  universal  elec- 
tion, and  denied  completely  and  assailed  election  or  selection 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  namely  the  decree  of  God,  to 
save  those  believing  in  Christ  through  His  merit. 

We  have,  accordingly,  in  the  controversy  with  Huber  a  test 
case  as  to  how  the  Church  of  the  F.  C.  understood  the  11th 
article  on  the  question  concerning  the  relation  between  election 
and  faith.  To  be  sure,  it  can  be  shown  clearly  also  from  the 
other  writings  of  the  Lutheran  theologians  of  that  time,  from 
volumes  of  sermons,  expositions  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  etc.,  especially  from  polemical 
writings  against  the  Calvinists,  what  doctrine  of  election  was 
then  publicly  taught  in  churches  and  schools.  Huber,  however, 
was  a  Lutheran,  and  had  left  the  Reformed  just  because  of 
Calvin's  doctrine  of  predestination.  He  was  even  professor  at  Wit- 
tenberg, the  cathedra  Lutheri,  by  the  side  of  the  chief  champion 
of  the  Lutheran  faith  at  that  time,  ^gidius  Hunnius.  Huber, 
moreover,  was  not  only  known  and  respected  far  and  wide  as 
a  competent  and  valiant  defender  of  the  Lutheran  truth  over 
against  Calvinistic  error,  he  also  traveled  over  the  whole  of 
Lutheran  Germany  for  the  purpose  of  securing  adherents  and 
friends  for  his  doctrine.  The  entire  Lutheran  Church,  which 
had  made  the  F.  C.  its  confession  only  12  years  before  this  time, 
saw  itself  imperatively  compelled  to  make  a  declaration,  through 
the  persons  of  its  known  representatives,  most  of  whom  had 
signed  the  F.  C.  with  their  own  hands,  in  regard  to  the  sense 
of  the  Confession  and  the  faith  of  the  Church.  The  aged  Chy- 
traeus,  the  only  one  of  the  six  co-authors  of  the  F.  C.  still  living, 


372  Intuitu  Fidei. 

conferred  personally  with  Huber  and  left  us  his  clear,  direct 
testimony  on  the  question  concerning  the  relation  between  elec- 
tion and  faith.  Thousands  of  the  original  signers  of  the  F.  C. 
still  live;  all,  who  have  anything  to  say  in  regard  to  Huber, 
agree  perfectly  with  Chytraeus  and  Backmeister  in  Rostock,  with 
Hunnius  and  Leyser  in  Wittenberg,  with  Gerlach  and  Hafen- 
refifer  in  Tuebingen,  as  the  chief  opponents  of  Huber.  Nowhere 
do  we  hear  the  slightest  contradiction,  unless  we  take  the  utter- 
ances of  Daniel  Hofifmann  in  Helmstaedt,  who,  however,  had 
already  renounced  the  F.  C.  long  before  this.  Instead  of  crit- 
icising Hunnius  from  the  Missourian  standpoint  of  a  particular 
grace  of  election,  for  ascribing  too  much  to  faith  when  he  makes 
the  elective  separation  of  persons  unto  salvation  depend  on  faith, 
the  very  opposite  takes  place.  In  anti-Calvinistic  zeal  some  are 
inclined  here  and  there  to  favor  Huber,  they  excuse  his  position 
and  put  the  best  possible  construction  upon  it,  they  even  em- 
phasize with  great  earnestness  the  very  truths  which  Huber  in 
his  fanatic  way  set  forth  in  a  onesided  way  and  placed  in  contradic- 
tion to  other  doctrines,  so  that  he  imagined  he  had  to  reject  the 
latter  because  of  the  former. 

It  was  Huber's  intention  to  destroy  the  very  root,  the  Cal- 
vinistic  particularism,  which  had  been  established  and  devel- 
oped far  and  wide.  He,  accordingly,  emphasized  universal 
grace  so  exceedingly  and  so  onesidedly  as  to  not  only  call  this 
grace,  without  further  explanation,  a  universal  election  of  all 
men  on  the  part  of  God  (as  others  had  done  before  him,  and 
which  might  have  been  permitted  as  an  improper  expression), 
but  even  so  as  to  deny  that  God  had  at  all  chosen  believers  in 
a  special  sense,  and  that  there  existed  a  special  divine  decree 
of  election  applying  only  to  believers  as  such.  There  is  only 
one  divine  decree  of  election,  he  taught,  only  one  act  of  elec- 
tion on  the  part  of  God,  and  this  decree  or  act  simply  applies 
in  Christ  to  all  men  without  distinction.  By  this  he  did  not 
mean  to  say  that  non-believers  would  also  be  saved  since  they 
too  had  been  chosen  and  ordained  unto  salvation.  Huber  held 
fast  that  believers  alone  are  saved,  since  they  alone  become 
personal  partakers  of  Christ's  universal  merit  and  of  universal 
election.  But  he  would  not  place  in  God  a  special  decree  refer- 
ring only  to  believers,  or  to  their  faith,  or  to  Christ's  merit 
as  embraced  by  faith.  In  God,  he  claimed,  everything  remains 
absolutely  universal  and  equal,  and,  consequently,  there  can  be 


Co7icluding  Rerriarks.  373 

no  "subsequent  will,"  no  particular  decree  of  salvation,  least  of 
all  a  special  selection  on  God's  part  for  the  saving  of  certain 
individual  persons  (i.  e.  believers). 

Imagine    now    what    Lutheran    theologians    and    churches 
would  have  had  to  say  in  reply  to  Huber,  if  they  had  understood 
and   interpreted   the   Scriptures    and    the    Confession    after   the 
fashion  of  Missouri,  if  they  had  taught  in  harmony  with  Calvin- 
ism an  election  unto  salvation  without  foreseen  regard  to  future 
faith.     In  truth,  if  Hunnius  and  Gerlach  had  taken  this  doctrine 
to  oppose  Huber,  if  they  had  emphasized  a  selective  election  of 
persons  unto  certain  salvation  independent  of  faith,  it  would  not 
have  been  at  all  impossible  for  Huber,  like  Flacius  before  him,  to 
have  drawn  at  least  for  a  time  the  majority  of  the  F.  C.  theologians 
to  his  side.     For  in  the  writings  of  that  day  it  appears  that  the 
Lutheran  Church,  especially  since  the  Moempelgart  discussion 
(158G),  turned  with  abhorrence  and  indignation  from  the   Cal- 
vinistic  particularity  of  elective  grace  and  filled  its  heart  with 
the  universality  of  the  11th  article  of  its  Confession.     The  true 
middle  path  would  then  indeed,  have  been  between  Huber  and 
his  opponents,  and  doubtless  would  have  been  generally  accepted 
at  last  through  the  grace  of  God.     But  this  correct  middle  path 
between  Huber's  false  universalism  and  Missouri's  worse  par- 
ticularism all  the  opponents  of  Huber  in  the  Lutheran  Church, 
all  the  theologians  of  the  F.  C.  Church  did  at  once  adopt.     They 
did  not  object  so  much  to  Huber's  speaking  of  a  certain  election 
of  all  men;    they  only  opposed   his   calHng  this  a  selection  in 
the  proper  and  strict  sense  of  the  word,  and  then  especially  his 
denying  the  real  proper  election  of  "God's  children,  of  believers 
as  such,  and  his  assailing  this  as  Calvinistic  particularism.     In 
numberless  places  those  of  Rostock,  of  Wittenberg  and  Wuer- 
temberg  point  to  the  fact,  that  the  F.  C.  speaks  explicitly  of  the 
election  of  certain  persons,  which  "pertains  only  to  the  children 
of  God,"  who  are  none  but  believers.     And  just  as  frequently 
they  point  to  the  words  of  the  Epitome:    "In  Christ  we  should 
seek  the  eternal  election   of  the   Father,   who,   in   His   eternal 
divine  counsel,  determined  that  He  would  save  no  one  except 
those  who  acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on 
Him."     In  these  words  they  found  the  election  of  persons  clearly 
joined  to  faith.     An  election  unto  salvation,  which  excludes  from 
the  ordination  unto  salvation  all  those  who  do  not  believe  in 
Christ,  could  not  possibly  apply  to  sinners  "without  faith,"  either 


374  Intuitu  Fidei. 

to  all,  or  only  to  some.  The  fact,  that  at  the  moment  of  election 
they  appear  to  God's  eyes  as  having  no  faith,  would  necessitate 
the  result,  that  they  could  not  be  chosen,  if  God  really  followed 
the  principle  in  His  eternal  election,  that  "He  would  save  no 
one  except  those  who  believe  on  His  Son."  He,  therefore,  who 
was  regarded  as  "without  faith"  was  excluded  from  election;  he 
on  the  other  hand,  who  was  not  excluded,  but  included  in  this 
election,  must  have  belonged  then  already,  at  the  moment  of 
election,  to  the  number  of  those  (i.  e.  must  have  been  foreseen 
as  belonging  to  them)  who  "acknowledge  Christ  and  truly  be- 
lieve on  Him."  Although  this  sentence  is  negative  and  gives 
the  reason,  why  so  many  of  the  called  are  not  chosen,  it  never- 
theless contains  the  clear  and  positive  rule:  He  who  is  actually 
to  be  chosen  in  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father  must  (accord- 
ing to  God's  foresight)  be  one  who  does  not  reject  Christ  in 
unbelief,  but  accepts  Him  in  faith.  In  short,  the  real  selective 
separation  of  those  persons  who  alone  are  to  be  saved  cannot 
be  conceived  as  having  taken  place  without  the  foreknowledge 
of  God  respecting  the  future  faith  of  certain  persons,  nor  can 
it  be  placed  before  God's  foreknowledge  respecting  faith  and 
unbelief;  on  the  contrary,  as  far  as  the  thought  of  time  is  con- 
cerned, it  is  connected  with  this  foreknowledge,  and  as  far  as 
logical  order  is  concerned,  it  has  taken  place  "after  God's  fore- 
knowledge respecting  faith"  (i.  e.  really  "for  the  sake  of  Christ's 
merit  as  embraced  by  faith").  "He  that  believes  shall  be  saved" 
is  the  order  of  election  and  the  rule  of  election.  Those  indi- 
viduals, called  by  the  Gospel,  whom  God  foresaw  as  believing 
in  Christ,  He  included  in  His  election  unto  salvation  as  persons 
who  "shall  be  saved."  Those,  however,  of  whom  God  foresaw 
that  they  do  not  "acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  believe 
on  Him,"  He  excluded  from  election.  The  cause  and  explana- 
tion of  all  this  is  the  fact,  that  He  "will  save  no  one  except  those 
who  believe." 

This  is  how  the  Church  at  that  time  understood  its  Con- 
fession. It  found  Huber's  doctrine  clearly  rejected  therein,  not 
so  much  because  Huber  in  general  taught  a  certain  kind  of 
universal  election,  but  because  he  denied  the  election  of  believ- 
ers in  Christ,  which  was  clearly  declared  in  the  Confession. 
These  are  the  simple  historical  facts. 

Missouri  may  indeed  consider  this  conception  of  the  11th 
article  on  the  part  of  the  F,  C.  Church  false  and  erroneous,  a 


Co7icludi7ig  Remarks.  375 

"misunderstanding"  of  the  Symbol,  false  doctrine,  etc.  Yet  it 
will  not  be  able  thereby  to  alter  in  the  least  the  historical  fact, 
that  the  entire  Lutheran  Church,  as  far  as  it  then  expressed  itself 
as  the  original  F.  C.  Church  in  the  Huber  controversy,  actually 
and  unanimously  had  this  and  no  other  conception  of  its  Con- 
fession. The  thing  that  ^lissouri  claims  to  find  in  the  Confes- 
sion, a  complete  election  unto  salvation,  pertaining  not  to  be- 
lievers as  such,  but  to  persons  "still  lying  with  the  rest  in  their 
general  depravity,"  this  the  F.  C.  theologians  did  not  find  in 
the  Confession;  on  the  contrary,  they  rejected  this  doctrine  re- 
peatedly as  a  Calvinistic,  yea  heathen,  and  wicked  doctrine. 
The  thing  that  these  men  found  taught  in  the  Confession,  an 
election  of  believers  as  such,  this  Missouri  to-day  is  unable  to 
find  there,  and  it  rejects  this  doctrine  as  antiscriptural  and  anti- 
symbolical,  yea  it  brands  our  Lutheran  fathers  on  account  of 
this  doctrine  as  men  who  have  "deviated  from  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Symbol"!!  This  very  "Intuitu  fidei  theory,"  which  Mis- 
souri reviles  and  derides  as  a  piece  of  synergistic  Pelagian  heresy, 
was  the  exact  doctrine  of  election  which  the  F.  C.  theologians 
in  Mecklenburg,  Brandenburg,  Saxony,  Hessia,  Wuertemberg, 
€tc.  maintained  as  scriptural  and  confessional  over  against  Huber 
and  the  Calvinists,  and  found  taught  clearly  and  distinctly  in 
the  F.  C,  only  recently  adopted  by  them  and  subscribed  with 
their  own  hands.  The  Missourian  Calvinistic  particularity  of 
■"elective  grace,"  on  the  other  hand,  was  entirely  alien  to  them. 
According  to  them  "elective  grace"  was  not  in  itself  something 
particular,  something  pertaining  in  general  only  to  a  few  sinners, 
just  as  little  as  this  was  the  case  with  calling,  justifying,  and  in 
general  saving  grace;  but  only  the  elective  act  or  the  decree 
of  election  was  particular.  And  this,  to  be  sure,  for  the  reason, 
that  God,  who  desired  to  elect  and  ordain  all  men  unto  salva- 
tion, if  only  they  would  believe  in  Christ,  would  not  elect  or 
ordain  unto  salvation  a  single  person  without  faith,  as  also  the 
Confession  itself  clearly  declares.  For  Missouri,  however,  the 
grace  of  election  and  the  election  of  grace  is  one  and  the  same 
thing,  and  both  pertain  only  to  certain  sinners  considered  as  still 
without  repentance  and  faith,  pertaining  to  them,  however,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  include  in  the  infallible  decree  of  salvation  at 
the  same  time  an  infallible  (one  that  "executes  itself"  in  spite 
■of  their  wilful  and  wicked  resistance)  decree  of  conversion  and 
perseverance.     Of  course,  for  evident  reasons  Missouri  does  not 


376  Intuitu  Fidei. 

like  to  say  an  "irresistible  decree  of  conversion  and  salvation"; 
yet  it  substitutes  a  word  that  means  the  same  thing:  "election 
executes  itself"  —  independent  of  everything  good  or  evil,  even 
of  wilful,  obstinate,  wicked  conduct.  But  this  very  particularism 
and  absolutim  of  grace  our  F.  C.  men  opposed  on  the  part  of 
Calvinists  as  "unchristian  and  heathenish,"  and,  of  course,  had 
to  sufifer  their  own  doctrine  to  be  slandered  under  the  name  of 
Pelagianism;  so  that  it  is  perfectly  in  order  when  Calvinizing 
Missouri  to-day  reviles  the  doctrine  of  these  F.  C.  men  held  by  us 
as  synergistic  and  Pelagian.  That  which  is  bred  in  the  bone, 
will  never  out  of  the  flesh. 

If  there  is  one  spark  of  honesty  in  St.  Louis  —  which  we 
doubt  much  because  of  their  ceaseless  lying  and  slander* —  it 
is  their  turn  now  to  come  to  a  settlement  with  these  historical 
facts.  How  did  the  Lutheran  Church,  only  12  years  after  the 
adoption  of  the  11th  article,  attain,  in  the  south  and  in  the  north, 
in  the  east  and  in  the  west,  this  unanimous  conception  and  con- 
fession of  the  doctrine  of  election,  which  was  taught  in  oppo- 
sition to  Huber  in  all  the  acknowledged  orthodox  universities- 
and  defended  in  the  polemical  publications  of  all  important  sub- 
scribers to  the  F,  C?  Did  all  these  men — Hunnius,  Leyser,. 
Mirus,  Loner,  Mylius,  Heerbrand,  Osiander,  Magirus,  Biedem- 

*  From  the  very  start  of  the  controversy  Dr.  Walther,  for  instance, 
repeatedly  represented  rratters  as  though  the  point  at  issue  between  him 
and  ourselves  was  the  same  as  that  between  Huber  and  the  "acknowledged 
orthodox"  theologians  of  Wittenberg  and  Tuebingen.  As  though  he  and 
his  adherents  were  defending  the  doctrine  of  Hunnius,  Gerlach,  Leyser, 
etc.  against  us,  while  we  were  defending  Huber's  doctrine  against  Mis- 
souri. He  also  repeatedly  referred  to  the  fact  that  Huber  had  already 
accused  these  "acknowledged  orthodox"  theologians  of  Calvinism,  so  that 
it  was  not  at  all  strange,  when  he  and  his  adherents,  as  followers  of  these 
"acknowledged  orthodox"  theologians,  were  in  the  same  way  accused  of 
Calvinism.  But  then  already  Dr.  W.  knew  that  neither  we  were  defend- 
ing Huber's  doctrine,  nor  he  that  of  Huber's  opponents.  He  knew  that 
the  doctrine  of  election  in  view  of  faith,  maintained  by  the  men  of  Witten- 
berg and  of  Tuebingen,  is  precisely  our  doctrine,  and  that  in  this  whole 
trouble  with  Missouri  we  meant  to  hold  fast,  and  actually  did  hold  fast, 
nothing  but  what  these  "acknowledged  orthodox"  men  of  Wittenberg  and 
Tuebingen,  these  champions  among  the  original  subscribers  to  the  F.  C, 
had  victoriously  maintained  over  against  Huber  as  well  as  over  against 
the  Calvinists.  For  these  and  the  great  majority  of  all  the  other  signers 
of  the  F.  C.  were  still  living  when  this  doctrine  of  God's  Word,  now  ridi- 
culed by  Walther  and  his  adherents  as  the  "Intuitu  Fidei  theory",  and 
condemned  as  a  deviation  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Symbol,  was  taught 


Concluding  Remarks.  377 

bach,  Holder,  Binder,  Gerlach,  Arcularius,  Backmeister,  Chy- 
traeus,  Coler,  Francisci  ■ —  did  all  these  original  signers  of  the 
F.  C.  understand  the  sense  of  the  11th  article  in  such  an  entirely 
wrong  way,  when  they  examined  this  article  and  solemnly  signed 
it  as  the  confession  of  their  own  faith?  Or  did  they  perhaps 
agree  with  the  Confession  in  1580  when  it  was  published  in  their 
name  and  with  their  signatures  as  the  confession  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  had  they  now,  alas,  in  1592,  come  to  change  their 
minds  and  one  and  all  fallen  away  from  the  Confession  they  had 
signed  in  the  name  of  the  Church?  Not  one  of  them  brought 
in  the  Missourian  idea  of  the  relation  between  election  and  faith, 
in  this  controversy  with  Huber!  Not  one  of  them  teaches  that 
the  "Intuitu  fidei  theory,"  emphasized  so  strongly  by  Hunnius 
and  Gerlach,  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  not  the  doc- 
trine of  the  F.  C,  not  the  confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church! 
These  men  are  the  acknowledged  representatives  of  the  Lu- 
theran doctrine  and  Church  at  the  very  time  when  this  Church 
adopted  the  F.  C.  as  its  confession  of  faith.  They  themselves 
took  an  active,  prominent  part  in  the  adoption  of  the  Confes- 
sion, signing  it  as  the  "organs"  of  the  Church  in  her  name.  Is 
now  the  doctrine  which  these  men,  according  to  their  subsequent 
unanimous   statement,   found   expressed  in   the   Confession   and 


universally  in  the  Lutheran  Church  and  acknowledged  as  according  to  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Symbol.  Indeed,  Dr.  Walther  knew  that,  if  he  com- 
pared the  present  doctrinal  controversy  to  that  of  Huber,  the  case  would 
be  this:  The  very  doctrine  of  election  unto  salvation  in  view  of  faith  in 
Christ,  which  Huber  at  that  time  rejected  and  opposed  as  Pelagianizing, 
and  which  Huber's  opponents  held  fast  as  scriptural  and  confessional  and 
maintained  victoriously,  is  to-day  opposed  by  Missouri  with  the  same 
specious  arguments,  and  on  the  other  hand  maintained  by  us  "opponents" 
with  the  same  victorious  weapons  All  this  Dr.  W.  knew  and  knows  now 
as  perfectly  as  any  man  could  know  it.  In  spite  of  this  he  again  recently 
dared  to  identify  the  doctrine  of  his  opponents  with  that  of  Huber,  de- 
scribing it  as  "a  heresy,  which  had  been  victoriously  opposed  and  rejected 
long  ago  in  our  Church,  already  in  the  16th  century",  and  then  proceeding 
to  recommend  himself  and  his  brethren  in  the  faith  as  the  true  successors 
of  these  orthodox  Lutherans.  If  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  "conscious 
lie",  if  there  have  ever  been  in  rerum  natura  conscious  lies,  then  this  pre- 
sentation by  Dr.  Walther  of  the  point  at  issue  in  the  present  controversy 
is  such  a  lie.  And  what  is  far  worse,  hundreds  of  his  people  stand  by  and 
see  this  poor  man  placing  his  soul's  eternal  salvation  in  jeopardy  by  open 
lying,  and  not  one  of  them  possesses  courage  enough  to  tell  him  to  his 
face,  for  his  soul's  good,  that  such  conscious  liars  cannot  inherit  the  king- 
dom of  God.     Alay  God  have  mercy  on  them! 


378  In  hi  it  II  Fidei. 

which  they  signed  and  pubUshed  as  the  actual  faith  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church,  is  this  really  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession?  Or 
did  the  Confession  contain  a  dififerent  meaning  and  a  different 
doctrine?  And  was  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  whose  name 
they  put  down  their  signatures  really  different?  How  was  it! 
Answer! 

Another  thing.  Besides  those  named,  whose  unanimous 
testimony  we  have  given  at  length,  the  great  majority  of  the 
other  subscribers  were  still  living  when  the  controversy  with 
Huber  was  fought  out  and  the  doctrine  of  the  election  of  believers 
as  such  was  universally  acknowledged  as  that  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  and  of  the  Confession.*  Why  did  none  of  all  these 
lift  up  his  voice,  if  now,  so  short  a  time  after  the  adoption  of 
the  F.  C,  a  deviation  from  the  Symbol  in  one  of  the  important 
fundamental  doctrines  was  taking  place?  Were  they  all  "dumb 
dogs,"  cowardly  "ducking  their  heads"  on  account  of  the  prom- 
inence of  men  like  Hunnius  and  Leyser,  denying  the  divine  truth 
they  had  just  confessed  publicly?     We   can   name   a  long  line 


*  When  St.  Louis  continues  to  say  that  the  "later  dogmaticians  of  the 
17th  century"  invented  the  "Intuitu  fidei  theory",  or  at  least  gave  it  gen- 
eral currency  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  this  is  again  one  of  those  gross 
falsehoods,  spread  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  appear  that  after  all  the 
Lutheran  Church  at  the  time  of  the  F.  C,  and  for  some  thirty  or  forty 
years  thereafter,  really  knew  nothing  of  this  "theory".  Hutter  and  Ger- 
hard are  the  first  two  prominent  representatives  of  the  "later  dogmati- 
cians." They  were  pupils  almost  entirely  of  subscribers  to  the  F.  C,  and 
in  the  earlier  years  of  their  activity  contemporaries  and  co-laborers  of  such 
subscribers.  Gerhard's  Locus  de  Praedestinatione  was  published  almost 
every  word  as  we  find  it  now,  already  in  1607  at  Coburg,  eight  years  before 
he  entered  Jena  as  professor.  Hutter's  "Exposition  of  the  F.  C."  was 
published  in  1609.  Both  of  these  works  do  indeed  contain  the  "Intuitu 
fidei  doctrine,  in  full  form.  Hutter  in  his  "Exposition  of  the  F.  C."  brings 
this  doctrine  ex  professo  as  that  of  the  Lutheran  Confession.  Certainly 
several  thousand  of  the  8000  original  subscribers  were  still  living,  perhaps 
more  than  half  of  them.  Not  a  single  one  raised  his  voice  to  rescue  the 
genuine  sense  of  the  Confession  from  the  perversions  of  this  falsifier!  ! 
But  the  chief  question  is  still:  Where  was  the  church  which  ever  adopted 
the  Confession  in  the  Missourian  sense,  when  the  whole  host  of  original 
subscribers,  as  quoted  by  us,  in  Rostock,  in  Wittenberg,  in  Leipzig,  in 
Brandenburg,  in  Tuebingen,  in  Marburg,  declared  unaniinously  shortly 
afterwards  that  they  had  subscribed  the  doctrine  of  the  particular  election 
of  believers  as  such  in  the  Confession  as  the  faith  and  confession  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  and  subscribed  it  in  her  name?  Where  did  these  Mis- 
sourian subscribers  keep  themselves  during  all  these  years  of  controversy 
with  Huber?     In  Utopia? 


Concluding  Remarks.  379 

of  subscribers  to  the  F.  C.  who  certainly  survived  the  contro- 
versy Mfith  Huber  (1592-98),  some  of  whom  did  not  depart  this 
life  until  the  pupils  of  the  F.  C.  men  —  of  Hutter,  Meisner,  Men- 
zer,  Gerhard,  etc.  —  had  reached  their  prime.  Compare,  for 
instance,  the  date  of  death  of  the  following  subscribers:  Z. 
Schilter,  1G04;  Sigfried  Saccus,  1596;  Ph.  Heilbrunner,  1616; 
Cyr.  Schneegas,  1597;  B.  Sattler,  1624;  V.  Schacht,  1607;  John 
Brenz,  Jr.,  1595;   John  Wesenbeck,  1612;    John  Stecher,  1611; 

A.  Vinarius,  1606;  J.  Schmidlin,  1600;  Jac.  Schropp,  1594;  H. 
Rentz,  1601;  M.  Hsegelin,  1631;  J.  Esthofer,  1606;  C.  Sautter, 
1604;  N.  Wielandt,  1617;  A.  Grammer,  1612;  J.  Hutzelin,  1621; 
J.  Assum,  1619;  W.  Msegling,  1602;  H.  Frey,  1599;  J.  Wein- 
inger,  1629;  Caspar  Lutz,  1602;  J.  Andrege,  1601;  Ph.  Greter, 
1612;  Th.  Byrk,  1615;    Israel  Wielandt,  1633;   J.  Schopf,  1621; 

B.  Morgenstern,  1599;  Conrad  Schluesselburg,  1619;*  Jer.  Pis- 
tor,  1613;  John  Piscarius,  1601;  G.  Vollmer,  1611;  "s.  Nau- 
heuser,  1595;  Ohr.  Hermann,  1612;  C.  Platz,  1595.  This  already 
is  quite  a  fine  number  of  theologians  so  important  and  well-known 
that  with  our  limited  means  we  are  able  to  give  the  date  of  their 
death.  What  sense  did  these  men  connect  with  the  11th  article 
•of  the  F.  C.  when  they  signed  it?  That  which  Hunnius,  Leyser, 
Ohytrseus,  etc.,  upheld  over  against  Huber,  or  that  which  Mis- 
souri now  imagines  to  have  discovered?  Or  were  they  all  such 
-miserable  hirelings,  that  they  permitted  the  "synergistic"  wolf 
to  ravage  as  he  pleased  in  the  Lutheran  fold? — who  knew  very 
well  that  the  doctrine  of  Hunnius,  Gerlach,  etc.  (the  "Intuitu 
fidei  theory")  is  not  taught  in  the  Confession,  yea  is  even  indirectly 
rejected  therein  and  branded  as  a  fundamentally  false,  blasphem- 
ous "error,  not  to  be  tolerated  in  the  Church,"  but  who  in  spite 
of  all  this  one  and  all  remained  as  still  as  mice,  when  it  came 
to  the  point  of  opposing  this  "falling  away"  from  the  Confession?! 
Did  they  really  all  shortly  before  this  solemnly  confess  the  truth 
as  Missourians,  and  now  deny  it,  many  of  them  for  years,  by 
their  cowardly  silence  in  the  face  of  prevailing  error? 

We,  of  course,  need  not  answer  all  these  questions.     But 
if  St.  Louis  has  still  a  spark  of  honesty  left,  then  let  it  come  to  an 


*  A  man  like  Conrad  Schluesselburg,  born  1543,  author  of  Catalogus 
Haereticorum  in  nine  volumes,  would  surely  have  bestirred  himself,  if 
he  had  detected  synergistic  filth  or  a  deviation  from  the  Scriptures  and 
the  Symbol  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination  as  taught  by  Hunnius  and 
others!     Or  was  he  asleep  from  1592-1619? 


"80  hihdtzi  Fidel. 

open  and  honest  settlement  with  these  facts.  The  sense  of  the 
11th  article  is  and  shall  forever  remain  that  which  the  original 
subscribers,  who  signed  it  with  their  own  hands,  attached  to  its 
language,  when  in  the  name  of  their  churches  and  schools  they 
signed  the  Fornuila.  What  this  sense  really  was  they  themselves 
have  shown  us  by  their  own  documents  in  the  most  indubitable 
way.     This  settles  the  whole  thing! 

Yet  —  great,  great  is  Diana  of  the  Missourians!  This  new 
goddess  of  the  chase  has  slain  strange  game  in  tracking  syner- 
gism and  has  executed  a  wonderful  shot  of  revelation.  She  has 
discovered  altogether  anew  the  "genuine"  sense  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  —  this  we  have  to  admit,  for  hitherto  not  even  the 
original  subscribers  and  autliors,  to  say  nothing  of  the  later  church 
which  had  "deviated  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Symbol,"  knew 
anything  of  this  sense  of  the  Formula.  After  300  years  St.  Louis 
has  hit  upon  what  is  the  "genuine"  sense  of  F.  C,  of  which  not 
only  the  later  dogmaticians,  but  even  the  original  subscribers 
in  the  name  of  the  Church  had  no  inkling.  This  is  the  master 
shot,  the  king's  shot!     Great  is  Diana  of  the  Missourians! 


THE  IMMEDIATE  PUPILS  OF  THE  SUBSCRIBERS  OF 
THE  FORMULA  OF  CONCORD. 


INTRODUCTION. 

We  read  in  the  Report  of  the  Western  District  of  the  Mis- 
souri Synod  for  the  year  1858,  p.  17:  "The  question  is  asked: 
*Is  it  not  absolutely  necessary  to  take  the  Symbols  in  none  but 
their  historical  sense?'  I  answer:  To  be  sure,  if  correctly  un- 
derstood; if  our  meaning  is  this,  that  history  furnishes  the  neces- 
sary light  for  understanding  'how  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  un- 
derstood and  interpreted  in  disputed  articles  in  the  church  by 
those  then  living,  and  how  the  contrary  doctrine  was  rejected 
and  condemned.'  " 

Surely  a  principle  altogether  correct.  Even  as  regards  the 
Holy  Scriptures  we  cannot  do  without  historical  exposition;  for 
he  who  would  fail  in  his  explanation  of  the  Scriptures  to  take 
account  of  the  circumstances  and  condition  of  affairs  at  that  time, 
who  would  take  and  interpret  everything  as  though  it  were  writ- 
ten to-day,  would  in  many  instances  put  the  greatest  nonsense 
into  the  Scriptures.  The  Jews,  for  instance,  would  then  be  quite 
right  in  still  looking  for  the  Messiah  to-day. 

If  now  there  arises  a  dispute  concerning  a  symbol  of  the 
church,  whether  it  be  one  of  the  ecumenical  or  one  of  the  specific- 
ally Lutheran  symbols,  because  certain  expressions  or  sentences 
are  understood  and  interpreted  dififerently,  the  only  correct  way 
to  decide  which  conception  of  the  symbol  is  correct  is  to  go  back 
to  the  church  which  adopted  and  set  up  the  symbol  as  the  con- 
fession of  its  faith.  If  one  were  to  form  his  judgment  of  the  con- 
fession in  such  a  case  merely  according  to  the  present  use  of  lan- 
guage, or  according  to  some  earlier  or  later  form  of  expression, 
he  would  very  likely  find  something  entirely  different  in  the  con- 
fession from  that  which  the  confession  itself  meant. 

This  bad  mistake  is  made  by  Missouri  in  regard  to  the  11th 
article.  Even  if  the  Confession  contained  the  sentence  in  so  many 
words:  "Election  is  the  cause  of  faith,"  this  would  not  at  all  be 
enough  to  decide  that  the  Missourian  doctrine  of  election  as  a 

(381) 


382  Inhdhc  Fidei. 

cause  of  faith  is  really  the  confessional  doctrine  of  our  Church. 
It  is  a  fact  that  the  word  "election"  has  been  taken  in  different 
senses,  and  the  question  would  then  be:  What  is  the  correct 
historical  interpretation  of  this  sentence?  If  it  can  be  demon- 
strated that  the  Church  at  that  time,  according  to  its  general  use 
of  language  and  according  to  the  explanation  of  the  sense  of  its 
Confession,  set  forth  election  proper,  or  the  separation  of  all  those 
persons  who  alone  are  to  be  saved,  as  depending  on  future  faith,, 
or  on  the  appropriated  merit  of  Christ,  then  it  is  an  unhistorical,. 
and  for  this  reason  altogether  objectionable,  interpretation  of  the 
Confession  to  find  this  election  throughout  set  forth  as  being  in- 
dependent of  faith.  Even  if,  judging  according  to  later  usage  of 
language,  one  would  be  compelled  to  find  in  the  Confession  an, 
election  unto  salvation  independent  of  faith,  it  would  neverthe- 
less be  foolish  in  the  highest  degree  on  this  account  to  impute  such 
a  doctrine  to  the  Confession.  To  be  sure,  it  may  not  exactly  suit 
Missouri  to  take  the  historical  sense  of  the  Confession,  i.  e.  to  find 
exactly  the  same  sense  in  the  Confession,  and  understand  and  in- 
terpret it  in  strictly  the  same,  way,  as  it  was  understood  and  inter- 
preted by  those  then  living,  by  the  original  subscribers,  by  the 
contemporaneous  Church.  But  right  must  still  be  right,  also  in 
this  respect.  The  true  and  only  correct,  authentic,  ecclesiastically 
valid  sense  of  the  Confession  is  none  other  than  that  connected 
with  this  article  by  the  Church  which  subscribed  and  adopted  the 
Confession. 

What  the  faith  was  that  lived  in  the  hearts  of  the  Church  at 
that  time,  what  the  doctrine  was  then  publicly  and  generally 
taught  from  the  lecture  desk  and  the  pulpit,  in  devotional  books 
and  in  polemical  writings  as  contained  in  the  Confession,  and  ac- 
knowledged as  Lutheran  doctrine  by  friend  and  foe,  the  testimonies 
we  have  furnished  from  the  immediate  subscribers  of  the  F.  C- 
have  shown  us  sufficiently.  But  besides  these  the  theologians 
that  grew  up  in  the  F.  C.  Church  as  pupils  of  the  first  subscribers 
are  a  still  further  powerful  testimony  against  Missouri's  unjusti- 
fiable perversion  of  the  Confession.  To  be  sure,  if  it  is  taken  for 
granted  that  already  the  original  subscribers  themselves,  who  as. 
organs  of  the  Church  at  that  time  made  the  Confession  the  symbol 
of  the  Church,  unfortunately  "misunderstood"  it,  or  that  only  a 
few  years  after  they  one  and  all  "deviated  from  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Symbol,"  then  indeed  it  will  also  be  assumed  that  their 
pupils  grew  up  in  this  antiscriptural  and  antisymbolical  "syner- 


IntroductioJi.  383 

gistic  Pelagian"  doctrine  and  themselves  promulgated  it.  And 
yet  it  would  be  remarkable  that  not  one  of  these  pupils  of  the 
F.  C.  men  knows  anything  about  a  dififerent  conception  of  the 
Confession!  The  Missouri  Synod  has  now  been  established  some 
40  years  (this  was  written  in  1884  —  Tr.).  At  the  time  of  its 
origin  the  doctrines  concerning  the  church  and  the  ministry  were 
so  to  say  in  a  fluid  state.  In  1852  the  Synod  adopts  the  theses 
presented  by  Dr.  Walther  in  the  "Voice  of  Our  Church."  If 
now,  some  40  or  50  years  after  the  founding  of  the  Missouri  Synod, 
there  should  arise  a  question,  as  to  how  this  or  that  main  point 
in  the  theses  referred  to  is  to  be  understood  as  the  symbol  of  the 
Missouri  Synod,  should  not,  in  addition  to  the  writings  of  the 
original  Missourians,  the  testimony  of  their  immediate  pupils  be 
taken  in  evidence?  And  if  everything  is  found  to  harmonize 
completely,  if  the  testimony  of  the  entire  multitude  is  unanimous 
and  of  one  accord,  would  not  he  be  a  fool  who  refuses  to  yield 
in  this  purely  historical  question,  and  in  defiance  of  all  the  facts 
is  determined  to  stick  to  the  foolish  notions  in  his  own  head? 

This  is  exactly  the  case  in  regard  to  the  F.  C.  To  us  the 
years  1580  and  1G20  may  appear  to  be  widely  separated.  They 
were  no  farther  apart  than  are  1846  and  1886.  In  1609  many  of 
the  original  8,000  subscribers  were  still  living  and  would  have 
rapped  the  rising  generation  sharply  over  the  knuckles,  if  it  had 
attempted  to  introduce  a  false  doctrine  of  predestination  and  to 
make  it  appear  that  this  was  contained  in  the  Confession.  And 
in  fact  it  is  altogether  inconceivable  that  Ruber's  doctrine  alone 
should  have  caused  such  a  commotion  in  the  Church,  if  the  doc- 
trine of  Hunnius  and  others  had  likewise  been  a  deviation  from 
the  Confession.  Surely,  some  one  would  have  found  himself  com- 
pelled to  say:  Thou  hypocrite,  Hunnius,  Leyser,  Gerlach,  etc., 
cast  out  first  the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye,  and  then  shalt  thou 
see  clearly  to  pull  out  the  mote  that  is  in  thy  brother's  eye!  Still, 
we  again  recall  the  possibility  that  the  subscribers  of  the  F.  C. 
one  and  all  either  misunderstood  the  11th  article  from  the  very 
beginning,  or  in  the  meantime  had  fallen  away  from  its  teaching, 
A  Missourian  may  for  evident  reasons  find  this  sort  of  thing 
conceivable. 


384  Intuitic  Fidei. 

LEONHARD  HUTTER. 

Among  the  immediate  pupils  of  the  theologians  of  the  Form- 
ula of  Concord  we  introduce  to  begin  with  Leonhard  Hutter.  He 
was  born  in  1563  in  Nellingen  near  Ulm;  he  studied  in  Strassburg 
under  Pappus,  at  Leipzig  under  Selnecker  and  Schilter,  at  Jena 
under  G.  Mylius.  At  the  latter  place  he  received  the  title  of  Doc- 
tor of  Theology  (in  1593),  Mylius  presiding;  the  subject  of  his 
disputation  for  the  degree  was  predestination.  In  1596  he 
received  a  professorship  at  Wittenberg  beside  Hunnius  and  Ges- 
ner;  he  died  in  1616.  The  letters  of  his  name  Leonardus  Hut- 
terus  were  flatteringly  rearranged  to  read  Redonatus  Lutterus 
(Luther  returned).  His  most  important  work  is  the  large  Loci 
Theologici,  where  we  find  the  following: 

"This  is  the  complete  elaboration  of  the  order  of  election:* 
Christ  and  His  merit,  only  when  appropriated  by  faith,  consti- 
tutes the  order  of  election.  It  is  in  this  way  that  the  second  part 
of  the  order,  by  being  added  to  the  first,  limits  the  universality  and 
effective  power  of  Christ's  merit  only  to  those  who  believe,  that 
is  as  far  as  its  saving  fruit  is  concerned.  On  this  point  now  Hu- 
ber  raises  a  disturbance  and  inciuires  anxiously,  in  what  manner 
and  with  what  right  faith  caa  be  a  constituent  of  the  eternal 
decree  of  election,  and  whether  faith  is  to  be  termed  a  cause  of  elec- 
tion. But  he  only  creates  difificulties  where  there  are  none.  For 
why  should  we  doubt  what  the  Scriptures  declare  explicitly,  as 
was  shown  heretofore  (from  Eph.  1,  1  and  12;  2  Thess.  2,  13;  Tit. 
1,  1;  James  2,  5).  But  that  this  part  of  our  elaboration  may  be 
the  clearer,  we  will  proceed  to  explain  it  as  it  were  part  by  part 
according  to  its  several  members.  First  of  all  it  is  sufficiently 
clear  from  what  has  been  said  that  the  condition  and  presence  of 
faith  must  be  called  a  part  of  the  divine  order  within  which  the 
decree  of  election  is  as  it  were  included  according  to  God's  will. 
This,  however,  does  not  prevent  faith  from  being  called  at  times 
and  in  its  way  also  a  cause  of  election.  For  the  common  rule  is 
true:  The  causes  of  election  are  the  same  as  those  of  justifica- 
tion. And  it  is  an  incontrovertible  truth,  that  the  causes,  by 
means  of  which  God,  in  the  execution  of  His  eternal  purpose, 

*  For  the  proper  understanding  of  his  words  we  note  that  in  the  pre- 
ceding passage  Hutter  divided  the  order  of  election  into  two  parts:  1) 
"The  first  place  belongs  to  Christ,  the  Savior,  and  His  merit";  2)  "The 
second  part  of  this  order  is  faith,  which  appropriates  Christ's  merit;  in 
our  day  this  part  has  called  out  the  severest  contentions." 


Leonhard  Hutter.  385 

saves  men  in  time,  are  the  same  as  those  through  which  He 
determined  from  eternity  to  save  men.  Now  men  are  saved  in 
time:  by  the  mercy  of  God,  for  the  sake  of  the  Mediator  Christ, 
who  is  appropriated  by  faith.  Hence  we  must  take  it  that  their 
salvation  has  been  determined  from  eternity  by  means  of  these 
same  causes  (among  them  also  faith),  or,  what  amounts  to  the 
same  thing,  that  their  election  took  place  by  means  of  these  same 
causes.  Huber  indeed  declares  that  it  tastes  of  Pelagianism  to 
say,  faith  in  this  sense  enters  election  as  a  cause.  But  he  falls 
into  the  fallacy  of  confounding  the  causes,  and  moreover  draws 
illogical  conclusions.  For,  aside  from  the  fact,  that  we  readily 
admit,  faith  is  a  gift  of  God,  bestowed  in  pure  unmerited  grace, 
it  is  not  at  all  asserted  in  regard  to  faith  that  it  is  a  meritorious 
cause  of  election,  for  the  sake  of  which,  or  for  the  sake  of 
the  worthiness  of  which,  eternal  election  took  place.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  claimed  that  faith  is  only  an  organic  or  instrumen- 
tal cause,  and  that  election  took  place  not  for  the  sake  of  its  wor- 
thiness or  for  the  sake  of  its  merit,  but  only  that  it  was  effected 
in  the  order  of  faith.  Hence  just  as  in  the  act  of  justification 
faith  is  only  regarded  relatively  (RELATE),  namely  as  relating 
to  Christ,  so  also  in  the  mystery  of  election.  If,  accordingly, 
faith  could  not  enter  the  decree  of  election  for  the  reason,  that 
it  is  an  unmerited  gift,  then  for  the  same  reason  it  would  have 
to  be  excluded  from  justification,  and  this  would  be  altogether 
false.  Similarly  the  expression:  'Faith  is  a  cause  of  election 
in  respect  to  the  order,'  must  not  be  understood  as  though  we 
meant  to  say  (as  the  Calvinists  slanderously  attribute  to  us*)  that 
men  ordained  themselves  unto  eternal  life,  which  would  be  Pela- 
gian; but  our  meaning  is  that  men  follow  the  order  established 
by  God,  so  that  they  are  ordained  not  by  themselves,  but  by  God. 
They  are  ordained,  however,  partly  in  respect  to  the  call  of  the 
Gospel,  wherein  God  anticipates  all  human  endeavor,  and  partly 
in  respect  to  faith  itself,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  enkindles  in  man 
through  the  Word  that  is  heard"  (p.  801). 

"Properly  speaking,  God  foreknows  nothing,  having  from  all 
eternity  everything  future  before  Him  as  most  completely  pres- 
ent. He  thus  foreknew,  yea  as  it  were  saw  before  Him,  that 
some  among  men  would  submit  themselves  to  the  divine  order 
(sese  ordini  divino  attemperaturos)  through  faith  in  Christ  (in 

*  The  same  thing  is  true  of  Missourians  who  are  equally  inclined  to 
slander. 


386  Intuitu  Fidei. 

whose  order  it  pleased  Him  from  eternity  to  elect  men),  i.  e. 
would  truly  believe.  .  .  .  God,  however,  foreknew  not  merely  in 
a  general  way  that  some  men  would  believe,  but  He  foreknew 
exactly  which  single,  separate  persons,  each  considered  individ- 
ually, would  believe  and  when  they  would  believe.  Faith,  there- 
fore, is  not  considered,  in  this  matter  of  eternal  election,  as  an 
actuality  and  as  a  fact,  as  already  present,  enkindled  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  man's  heart,  which  of  course  could  only  take  place  in 
time;*  on  the  contrary  (faith  is  taken  into  consideration), 
because,  for  one  thing,  it  belongs  to  the  order  and  to  the  decree  of 
predestination  or  of  God  electing,  and  for  another  thing,  because 
it  is  an  object  of  His  eternal  foreknowledge.f  And  this  doctrine 
has  nothing  in  common  with  the  idle  notion  of  the  scholastics 
concerning  foreseen  works  in  view  of  which  God  is  said  to  have 
chosen  us.  For  there  is  a  great  difference  here.  In  the  first 
place,  faith  is  not  regarded  here  as  a  virtue,  a  quality,  or  a  kind 
of  work,  but  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  related  to  Christ's  merit  (quate- 
nus  relate  se  habet  ad  meritum  Christi).  Besides  this,  faith  as 
appropriating  Christ's  merit  does  not  contradict  grace,  but  is 
subordinate  to  it.  Works,  however,  are  as  incompatible  with 
grace  in  this  article  as  in  that  of  justification,  for  these  two  (grace 
and  works)  exclude  one  another;  as  the  apostle  teaches:  If  we 
have  been  chosen  through  grace,  it  was  not  of  works,  otherwise 
grace  would  no  longer  be  grace ;  but  if  it  was  of  works,  then  it  was 
not  by  grace,  otherwise  works  would  no  longer  be  works.  Rom. 
11,  6.  Since  orthodox  theologians  keep  this  in  mind,  they  justly 
repel  the  expression:  'We  are  elected  for  the  sake  of  faith.' 
which  silently  presumes  merit  on  our  part.  But  we  say  with  the 
Scriptures:  'We  are  elected  through  (PER)  faith  or  in  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ'  And  this  is  exactly  the  same  sense  as  we  are 
accustomed  to  use  the  same  expression  in  the  article  of  justifica- 
tion.    2  Thess.  2,  15:     En  pistei  aletheias."     (Page  802.) 

Missouri,  however,  has  been  for  years  opposing  precisely 
this,  that  in  the  election  of  persons  unto  the  certain  attainment 

*  Tn  this  way  faith  can  be  taken  into  consideration  only  when  it  actu- 
ally exists,  for  instance  in  justification  and  in  the  bestowal  of  salvation. 

t  According  to  Hutter,  therefore,  faith  belongs  to  election,  1)  because 
God's  will  and  order  regarding  election  is  this:  He  alone  who  believes  in 
Christ  through  the  grace  ofifered  him  shall  be  elected  unto  life;  2)  because 
God  foreknew  every  single  believing  person  as  such,  and  actually  also 
elected  each  according  to  His  will  and  the  order  of  His  election.  Later 
writers  analysed  this  into  the  Syllogismus  Praedestinatorius. 


Leonhard  Hutter.  387 

of  salvation  faith  in  Christ,  on  the  one  hand,  is  not  taken  into 
consideration  (namely  as  a  merit,  work,  virtue,  good  quality,  etc.), 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  is  still  taken  into  consideration  (namely  in 
respect  to  Christ  and  as  the  only  means  on  man's  part  for  partak- 
ing personally  of  Christ's  universal  merit)  in  the  same  way  as  in 
justification  and  the  bestowal  of  salvation  in  time.  Faith,  they 
say,  merely  flows  from  election,  is  only  a  result  and  fruit  of  elec- 
tion, since  God  has  chosen  certain  sinners  without  faith,  accord- 
ing to  His  secret  good  pleasure  (arcanum  libitum),  unto  salvation 
itself  and  in  the  same  way  also  unto  faith.  To  teach  an  election 
"out  of  (foreseen)  faith  unto  (actual)  faith"  would  be  altogether 
correct.  But  this  is  the  very  doctrine  Missouri  accuses  as  non- 
sense and  as  also  false. 

Hutter  writes  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Book  of  Concord: 
"Willingly  we  admit  that  neither  faith  nor  the  foresight  of  faith 
is  the  cause  of  our  election.  Faith  is  not,  because  in  itself,  inas- 
much as  it  is  a  virtue,  habit,  or  quality  it  does  nothing  whatever 
toward  our  election  or  toward  our  justification;  in  this  respect  its 
condition  is  altogether  the  same  as  that  of  the  works  or  merits  of 
men.  But  we  also  say  that  the  foresight  of  faith  is,  properly 
speaking,  not  the  cause  of  our  election;  for  it  was  already  shown, 
in  the  general  remarks  above,  that  foresight,  as  also  foreknowl- 
edge, is  not  the  cause  of  anything  foreseen  or  foreknown,  but 
embraces  only  the  knowledge  of  all  that  is  foreknown.  And  yet, 
admitting  this,  our  cause  is  not  on  this  account  lost"  (as  far  as 
Huber  and  the  Calvinists  are  concerned*),  "nor  has  it  been  proven 
thereby  on  the  part  of  our  opponents  that  faith  in  Christ  must  be 
expunged  from  the  decree  of  election.  For  it  has  already  been 
incontrovertibly  demonstrated  above  that  the  foreknowledge  of 
God,  without  which  the  decree  of  election  could  not  take  place, 
referred  solely  to  Jesus  Christ  foreseen  (1  Peter  1,  20),  as  the 
true  cause  of  our  election;  and  to  Him  not  only  in  so  far  as  He 
completed  the  work  of  redemption,  but  in  so  far  as  He  becomes 
ours  through  faith.  For  without  faith  Christ  benefits  us  noth- 
ing." 

"After  prefacing  this,  we  infer  that  two  things  chiefly  must 
be  considered  in  the  decree  of  election:  namely  the  decree  itself 
and  the  mode  of  the  decree.     The  decree  itself  refers  to  the  sfra- 


*  To-day  we  must  add:  and  as  far  as  the  Missourians  and  Waltherians 
are  concerned. 


388  Intuitu  Fidei. 

cious  purpose  of  electing  men  unto  salvation.  But  the  mode  of 
the  decree  includes  the  order  of  means,  through  which  God  de- 
cided to  carry  out  His  decree:  that  He  would  have  as  the  elect 
unto  life  only  those  who  perseveringly  believe  in  His  Son.  Thus, 
therefore,  faith  necessarily  depends  on  the  ordination  of  means, 
without  which  no  decree  of  election  was  ever  formed;  the  election 
of  persons  themselves,  however,  depends  on  the  grace  of  God 
and  the  merit  of  Christ,  but  only  as  embraced  by  faith.  Conse- 
quently, when  we  state  that  faith  in  Christ  is  included  in  the 
decree  of  election,  we  do  not  consider  faith  in  itself,  but  we  desig- 
nate Christ  alone,  embraced  by  firm  faith,  as  the  meritorious 
cause  of  predestination." 

"If  now  the  question  is  raised,  whether  election  depends  on 
faith,  or  faith  upon  election,  we  respond  that  both  can  readily  be 
claimed,  but  each  in  a  certain  respect.  For  in  so  far  as  there  is 
a  certain  mutual  connection  between  things  that  belong  to  an 
order  in  so  far  also  faith  surely  depends  on  election,  and  vice 
versa  election  depends  on  faith,  or,  which  is  the  same,  upon 
Christ  apprehended  by  faith.  For  none  but  believers  are  the 
elect.  And  there  is  here  a  mutual  relation  between  election  and 
faith  like  that  between  the  thing  ordered  and  the  order,  or  between 
the  thing  determined  and  the  determination,  but  not  like  that 
between  the  effect  and  its  cause.  For  election  does  not  depend 
on  faith  as  an  impelling  or  meritorious  cause,  but  as  an  instru- 
mental or  organic  cause,  which  apprehends  the  grace  of  God 
electing  and  the  merit  of  Christ  offered  in  the  Word  of  the  Gospel." 

"And  assuredly,  our  opponents  will  not  be  able  to  eliminate 
this  consideration  of  faith,  of  which  we  have  just  spoken,  from 
the  eternal  decree  of  election,  until  they  bring  testimony  from  the 
Scriptures  that  God  from  eternity  decreed  to  save  men  through 
other  causes  than  those  through  which  He  saves  them  in  time; 
or,  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  that  God  formed  one  decree 
of  election  and  another  of  execution,  and  to  think  this  of  God 
would  be  impious  and  blasphemous,  as  it  would  subject  Him  to 
a  kind  of  mutability." 

"Meanwhile  we  honestly  declare  that  we  will  begin  no  con- 
troversy whatever,  should  any  one  prefer  to  call  faith  as  thus 
considered  in  the  decree  of  election  an  instrumental  cause,  or  a 
part  of  the  order  which  is  included  in  the  decree  of  election" 
(Liber  Christ.  Cone.  Explicatio,  p.  1101-1104.) 


Leonhard  Hiitter.  389 

Hutter  writes  in  his  Compend  of  the  Articles  of  Faith:* 
"Since  Christ  is  the  Redeemer  of  all  men,  would  not,  if  predesti- 
nation took  place  in  Christ,  all  men  be  the  elect  and  consequently 
election  universal?  Answer:  Christ  is  considered  in  the  decree 
of  election  not  merely  as  the  universal  Mediator,  but  also  in  so 
far  as  He  is  actually  apprehended  by  men  through  faith.  See 
Book  of  Concord,  Fol.  324,  'But  Christ  ....  cast  out.'  (Ja- 
cobs' TransL,  p.  661,  67  and  68.)  Passages:  John  1,  18;  John 
6,  40;  John  3,  16;  John  6,  37."  Question  27:  "Is  it  therefora 
your  opinion  that  God  elected  men  with  regard  to  foreseen  faith? 
Answer:  Why  should  I  not  believe  this,  since  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures confirm  this  very  thing  most  explicitly?  The  apostle  at 
least  asserts,  Eph.  1,  5,  that  God  has  chosen  us  unto  the  adoption 
of  sons  of  God.  But  now  Christ  has  given  this  power  to  become 
God's  children  not  to  those  who  are  born  of  blood,  or  of  the  will 
of  the  flesh,  or  of  the  will  of  man,  but  to  those  who  are  born  of 
God,  i.  e.  as  John  interprets  it,  to  those  who  believe  in  His  name. 
John  1,  12-13.  Hence  Christ  describes  the  elect,  John  17,  20: 
Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall 

*  In  1602  Hutter  completed  his  Commentaiy  on  Ph.  Melanchthon's 
Loci,  which  was  afterwards  published  as  his  great  Loci  Theologici.  He 
now  began  to  desire  a  different  Compend  from  that  of  Melanchthon  as  a 
basis  for  his  lectures.  He  also  received  an  order  from  the  Wittenberg 
Faculty  at  the  command  of  the  Elector  to  write  such  a  compend  or  hand- 
book, the  contents  of  which  should  be  taken  as  much  as  possible  from  the 
Book  of  Concord  now  adopted  in  Saxony.  We,  accordingly,  find  the  fol- 
lowing title  both  in  the  original  Latin  edition  and  in  the  German  trans- 
lation prepared  by  Hutter  himself  (1613):  "A  Brief  Compend  of  all  the 
Articles  of  Christian  Faith  from  the  Holy  Divine  Scriptures  and  the 
Christian  Book  of  Concord."  When  the  little  book  was  finished  it  was 
sent  to  Dresden  and  Leipzig  to  obtain  the  recommendation  of  those  theo- 
logians besides  that  of  the  Wittenberg  Faculty.  It  was  thus  published  at 
Wittenberg  in  1610,  while  many  of  the  old  faithful  F.  C.  theologians  were 
still  living,  but  it  was  also  frequently  reprinted  and  used  as  a  compend  in 
Latin  schools  and  taken  as  a  basis  for  lectures  on  dogmatics  in  univer- 
sities, for  which  reason  men  like  Sol.  Glassius,  Cundisius,  Friedem.  Bech- 
mann,  Christ.  Chemnitz,  and  others  published  dogmatical  works  on  it. 
Also  in  St.  Louis  this  Compend  was  dictated  in  German  by  Dr.  Walther 
to  the  students  in  1850-52,  from  which  dictation  we  quote  the  above  pas- 
sage. It  certainly  requires  a  special  kind  of  ingeniousness  to  assert  coolly 
under  such  circumstances,  "the  Synod"  has  always  held  and  impressed 
upon  its  students  in  the  institutions  the  same  doctrine  of  predestination; 
but  (alas!)  Prof.  Schmidt  and  a  few  brothers-in-law  and  malcontents  have 
fallen  away  from  this  doctrine  of  Synod!  God  will  surely  judge.  All 
accounts  are  not  yet  closed! 


390  Inhiitu  Fidei. 

believe -on  me  through  their  word;  furthermore  the  apostle, 
2  Thess.  2,  13:  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  —  in 
belief  of  the  truth;  1  Tim.  1,  16,  the  apostle  calls  the  elect  'them 
which  should  hereafter  believe  on  Him  to  life  everlasting';  and 
James  writes,  2,  5:  Hath  not  God  chosen  the  rich  in  faith?  And 
therefore  the  F.  C.  declares  in  its  Epitome  that  God  determined 
to  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ, 
and  believe  on  Him.  See  F.  C.,  Fol.  250:  'Who  in  His  .  .  .  . 
believe  on  Him.' "     (J.  Tr.  257,  13.) 


FREDERICK  BALDUIN. 

Frederick  Balduin*  published  in  1607  thirteen  disquisition 
on  the  Saxon  Articles  of  Visitation,  the  latter  •!  of  which  treat 
of  the  4th  article,  "Concerning  Election";  the  first  3  were  directed 
against  the  Calvinists,  and  the  last  against  Huber.  Balduin 
begins  his  discussion  with  the  sentence:  "For  the  better  under- 
standing of  the  doctrine  of  predestination  it  is  necessary  to  know 
its  causes.  Now  there  are  three  chief  causes:  the  first  is  the 
impelling  cause,  namely  God's  merciful  and  fatherly  will  toward 
the  human  race;  the  second  is  the  meritorious  cause,  namely 
the  all-sufificient  ransom  of  Christ,  paid  for  all  mortals ;  the  third 
is  the  instrumental  cause,  namely  the  call,  by  which  the  fatherly 
will  of  God  and  Christ's  merit  is  revealed  to  all  in  the  same  way 
and  offered  to  be  apprehended  by  faith."  Faith,  as  considered 
in  election,  is  treated  by  Balduin  in  the  following  manner. 

"God  desires,  according  to  His  antecedent  will,  that  men 
without  exception  may  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth  through 
the  appointed  means;  but  since  there  are  some  who  grasp  these 
means  with  both  hands  through  the  Holy  Spirit's  help  and  who 
steadfastly  govern  themselves  accordingly.  He  wills,  according 
to  His  subsequent  will,  that  these  alone  shall  be  the  elect.  And 
the  rest,  who  stubbornly  despise  these  means,  He  rejects  alto- 
gether according  to  His  subsequent  will.  These  two  wills, 
tlierefore,  (the  antecedent  and  the  subsequent)  are  not  two  con- 


*  Born  1575  in  Dresden,  sUidied  since  1593  at  Wittenberg  where  he 
was  made  Magister  in  1597  and  professor  of  theology  in  1604.  In  1601  he 
was  together  with  A''g.  Hunnius  at  the  renowned  Colloquium  at  Regens- 
burg.  His  most  important  work  is  the  Exposition  of  Paul's  Letters.  He 
died  in  1627. 


Frederick  Balduin.  391 

tradictory  or  opposing  wills,  but  the  one  follows  the  other  in  a 
subordinate  way,  because  each  is  taken  in  a  certain  respect:  1) 
The  antecedent  wall  establishes  what  all  must  do  to  be  saved; 
the  subsequent  refers  to  how  men  actually  conduct  themselves 
(quomodo  homines  actu  se  gerant),  whether  they  obey  the  ante- 
cedent will  or  not;  2)  the  antecedent  will  considers  the  order  of 
election,  its  end  (salvation),  and  the  means  leading  thereto,  as 
far  onl}^  as  God's  side  is  concerned;  the  subsequent  will  con- 
siders the  same  end  and  the  same  means,  as  far  as  man's  adopt- 
ing them  or  his  rejecting  them  is  concerned.  From  this  it  appears 
clearly  that  neither  works  nor  any  worthiness,  or  merit,  or 
excellency  of  any  kind  moved  God  to  predestinate,  but  only 
His  mercy  and  grace,  whose  foundation  is  Christ  Himself,  who 
reconciled  us  to  the  eternal  Father  through  His  all-sufficient 
ransom;  for  apart  from  Christ  God  is  for  us  a  consuming  fire. 
For  this  reason,  when  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  election  of  God's 
children  unto  salvation,  he  adds  the  means  'in  Christ,'  Eph.  1,  4. 
Nor  did  God  elect  us  for  the  sake  of  foreseen  faith  or  of  its  worthi- 
ness and  excellence,  but  He  has  elected  us  in  Christ  unto  the 
adoption  in  view  of  laitli  (intuitu  fidei),  as  also  it  pleased  God 
to  justify  and  save  us  not  for  the  sake  of  faith,  but  through  faith 
as  a  beggar's  hand.  Hence,  that  we  are  elected  in  view  of  faith 
as  foreknown  from  eternity  dare  not  be  referred  to  faith  as  an 
excellent  work,  but  must  be  gratefully  ascribed  to  Christ  as  the 
one  foreknown.  In  regard  to  this  will  of  God,  through  which 
we  are  elected  'in  Christ,'  we  assert  without  fear  that  it  is  not 
unconditional,  but  throughout  an  ordered  will  and  limited  by 
faith;  for  we  willingly  lend  our  ear  to  Paul  as  an  unimpeachable 
wdtness,  when  he  declares:  'God  hath  blessed  us  in  Christ, 
according  as  He  hath  chosen  us  in  Christ  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world.'  If  then,  as  the  apostle  declares,  we  are  chosen 
'in  Christ,'  this  proves  absolutely  that  Christ  is  the  cause  of 
election,  and  that  the  will  of  election  is  not  unconditional,  but 
subordinated  to  Christ.  And  this  just  as  in  the  act  of  justifica- 
tion, which  is  the  execution  of  election,  and  which  rests  on  its 
regular  means  (ordinariis  suis  constat  niediis).  For  we  are 
accounted  just  before  God  not  through  an  absolute  grace,  but 
in  Christ  as  apprehended  by  faith.  Rom.  3,  22.  28.  If,  there- 
fore, the  decree  is  to  agree  with  the  execution,  and  the  execu- 
tion with  the  decree,  we  dare  not  imagine  an  unconditional  elec- 
tion."    (Disp.  XI,  §  47-52.) 


392  Intidhi  Fidei. 

"■When  the  question  is  asked,  whether  the  number  of  the 
elect  is  lixed,  so  that  it  can  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished, 
this  can  be  understood  in  a  twofold  way,  either  absolutely,  or 
with  a  presupposition.  If  it  is  understood  absolutely  (simply  and 
in  general),  then  we  declare,  the  number  could  be  increased  and 
diminished.  For  if  more  men  would  have  believed  in  Christ 
and  persevered  in  the  joy  of  faith  unto  the  end  (as  they  could 
have  done  through  the  means  revealed  in  the  Word),  the  number 
of  the  elect  would  have  been  greater.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
some  of  the  elect  had  turned  away  from  God  (as  they  could  easily 
have  done  through  voluntary  wickedness),  the  number  of  the 
elect  would  have  been  smaller.  If,  however,  the  question  is 
understood  with  a  presupposition,  if  the  number  is  taken  as  it 
now  is,  then  it  can  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished,  for  all 
that  is  can  impossibly,  in  so  far  as  it  is  thus,  be  different  at  the 
same  time.  Augustine  elucidated  this  by  an  example:  'If  you 
consider  the  number  of  citizens  who  are  entered  in  the  city  record 
and  live  in  the  city,  as  this  number  actually  stands,  then  it  can 
neither  be  increased  nor  diminished;  if,  however,  you  consider 
the  number  as  it  might  have  been,  then  it  is  clear  that  there 
might  have  been  more  or  less,  since  more  might  have  come,  just 
as  well  as  less  might  have  left.'  And  God's  foreknowledge  would 
not  on  this  account  have  been  at  all  mistaken;  nor  would  the 
number  of  the  elect,  if  it  had  become  greater  or  less,  have  become 
in  any  way  uncertain.  For  if  a  greater  number  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles  had  been  gathered  into  the  bosom  of  the  Church  through 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  had  been  converted  in  true  faith, 
then  indeed  the  number  of  the  elect  would  have  become  greater. 
But  if  this  had  occurred,  it  would  not  have  remained  hidden  from 
the  foreknowledge  of  God.  In  respect  to  God  the  number  of 
the  elect  is,  therefore,  ever  completely  certain  and  remains  so." 
(§  60-62.*) 


*  Considered  in  itself  or  as  far  as  only  God's  gracious  will  of  election 
itself  is  concerned,  the  number  of  the  elect  might  have  been  just  as  large  as 
the  number  of  the  redeemed,  for  God  desired  to  "save"  them  all,  therefore 
also  to  ordain  them  all  imto  salvation,  as  far  as  His  will  alone  is  con- 
cerned. But  on  the  presupposition  of  the  divine  foreknowledge  election, 
which  is  governed  exactly  by  this  foreknowledge,  is  confined  to  certain 
limits,  since  the  will  of  man  is  also  taken  into  consideration,  inasmuch  as 
he  is  responsible  for  either  permitting  himself  to  be  saved  or  refusing  to 
do  so.  But  this  very,  precious  evangelical  doctrine  the  latest  number  of 
"Lehre  und  Wehre"  (March,  1884,  p.  89)  reviles  again  as  something  ex- 


Frederick  Balduin.  393 

"How  does  election  cause  faith  while  faith  is  included  in 
election  itself?  This  occurs  in  different  respects.  For  faith  was 
included  in  the  decree  of  election  according  to  the  foreknowledge 
and  with  respect  to  the  divine  intelligence;  but  it  is  actually 
awakened  in  us  in  accord  with  the  decree.  This  solution  the 
apostle  himself  olifers.  He  declares:  'God  hath  blessed  us  in 
Christ,  according  as  He  hath  chosen  us  in  Christ.'  But  He  has 
blessed  us  in  Christ  as  apprehended  by  faith,  hence  He  has  also 
elected  us  in  Christ  as  apprehended  by  faith.  It  is  therefore 
also  evident  from  this  testimony  of  the  apostle  that  faith  is  com- 
prehended in  the  decree  of  election.  Yet  it  does  not  precede 
election,  nor  is  it  a  cause  of  election,  unless  you  do  not  mean 
a  meritorious,  but  an  instrumental  cause,  which  apprehends  the 
mercy  of  the  eternal  Father  and  the  merit  of  Christ  offered  in 
the  Gospel.  For  it  is  solely  the  mercy  of  God  and  the  beneficent 
favor  of  His  will  which  has  caused  Him  to  form  such  a  decree 
regarding  those  who  believe,  and  that  He  would  bring  them  unto 
salvation  in  no  other  way  than  through  the  merit  of  Christ,  and 
this  for  the  purpose  of  showing  His  glorious  grace.  He  has, 
accordingly,  accepted  us  not  for  our  own  worthiness,  nor  for 
the  sake  of  the  merit  of  our  faith;  and  yet,  since  He  has  chosen 
us  in  Christ,  and  since  we  are  included  in  Christ  through  faith 
and  in  no  other  way,  He  has  also  ranked  faith  very  highly  in 
us,  in  this  respect,  that  it  was  His  will  that  faith  should  enter 
into  the  act  of  election.  This  is  not  inaptly  expressed  by  us,, 
when  v/e  say,  that  God  has  regarded  Christ  alone  in  this  decree, 
not  merely,  however,  as  He  is  offered  to  us,  but  also  as  He  is 
apprehended  by  faith,  without  which  apprehension  Christ  and 
all  His  merit  would  benefit  us  nothing.  From  this  it  follows 
that  they  who  do  not  appropriate  Christ's  merit  are  not  included 
in  the  decree  of  election.  For  these  are  two  different  acts,  when 
Christ  offers  us  His  merit,  and  when  He  bestows  it  upon  us, 
as  is  clearly  shown  in  John  3,  16.  Here  we  read:  'God  so  loved 
the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son.'  Behold,  here 
is  Christ  as  He  offers  Himself  to  the  whole  world.     Then  we 


ceedingly  absurd,  because  then  "God  would  not  elect",  and  "the  mysteri- 
ous contents  of  the  eternal  decree  of  election"  would  vanish  like  vapor. 
The  worst  part  of  it  all  is  not  that  these  theological  tight-rope-dancers, 
make  themselves  ridiculous  by  their  affected  little  tricks,  but  that  they  lie 
so  godlessly:  The  "fathers"  were  no  synergists  as  we  opponents  of  Mis- 
souri are. 


394  Inhdtu  Fidei. 

read  on:  'that  whosoever  beheveth  in  Him  should  not  perish.' 
These  words  show  us  Christ  bestowing  His  merit  upon  us.  The 
first  act  (the  offer)  is  stated  in  a  general  manner;  the  latter  (the 
act  of  bestowal)  is  stated  in  a  limited  manner,  it  pertains  only 
to  believers.  And  Christ  enters  our  election  in  the  same  way., 
not  merely  as  the  author  and  beginner  of  our  salvation  by  virtue 
of  the  righteousness  He  obtained  for  us,  but  also  as  the  finisher 
of  our  salvation  by  virtue  of  the  righteousness  imputed  to  us 
through  faith.  Now  how  does  Huber  come  to  make  both  acts 
universal  and  to  confound  the  act  of  love  with  the  act  of  elec- 
tion? Or  how  does  he  come  to  introduce,  as  it  were,  only  a 
half-righteousness  of  Christ  in  the  act  of  election,  a  righteousness 
obtained  indeed,  but  not  imputed?"     (Disp.  13,  §  34-40.*) 

"The  source  of  our  salvation  is  solely  Christ  who  offers  His 
^race  to  all  alike;  in  those,  however,  who  accept  Him,  His  grace 
is  a  superabundant  and  rich  grace,  as  the  apostle  teaches,  Rom. 
5,  10:  'For  if,  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to 
God  by  the  death  of  His  Son;  much  more,  being  reconciled, 
we  shall  be  saved  by  His  life.'     Hence  Christ  as  apprehended 


*  As  far  as  the  interpretation  of  the  apostolic  expression  "in  Christ" 
is  concerned,  all  the  above  applies  to  Missouri  to-day,  only  they  do  not 
even  permit  this  election  "in  Christ  as  not  yet  apprehended  by  faith"  to  be 
universal,  as  Huber  did,  but  conceive  of  it  as  particular,  after  the  manner 
of  the  German  Calvinists.  The  Lutheran  order  in  the  decree  of  election 
is  this:  In  Christ  —  foreseen  as  apprehended  by  faith  on  the  part  of  cer- 
tain persons  —  these  certain  persons  are  elected,  foi"  the  sake  of  Christ 
who  is  apprehended,  unto  the  adoption  of  God  and  the  inheritance  of 
Christ.  Thus  the  F.  C.  declares,  that  God  in  His  counsel  of  election  "de- 
termined that  He  would  accept  unto  grace  all  those  who  accept  Christ  in 
true  faith,  and  would  grant  them  the  adoption  and  inheritance",  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  He  determined  "to  save  no  one  except  those  who 
acknowledge  Christ."  When  St.  Louis  imagines:  "O,  we  could  soon 
have  reached  an  understanding  with  the  fathers,  they  would  soon  have 
favored  our  rejection  of  the  Intuitu  fidei  theory,  and  would  have  thanked 
us  for  our  better  instruction",  this  is  simply  a  piece  of  their  usual 
unsavory  boasting.  We  see  how  these  fathers  actually  did  reach  an  under- 
standing as  regards  the  arguments  advanced  to-day  by  Missouri.  The 
latter  introduces  no  new  wares  at  all,  it  simply  rehashes  the  stale  ideas  of 
Huber  and  the  Calvinists.  Does  Missouri  to-day  say  anything  concerning 
the  "election  in  Christ"  that  Huber  and  the  Calvinists  have  not  said  years 
ago,  and  that  our  fathers  reached  an  understanding  in  regard  to  by  refuta- 
tion and  rejection?  And  the  correct  interpretation  of  this  "election  in 
Christ"  is  the  cardinal  point  in  the  whole  controversy.  Hither,  ye 
Lutherans!     Thither,  ye  Calvinists! 


Frederick  Balduin.  395 

by  faith  is  the  cause  of  election;  rejected  by  unbehef  He  is  of 
no  benefit  to  the  wicked.  Tlius  not  our  faith,  but  Christ  is 
declared  to  be  the  cause  of  election ;  for  faith  enters  the  decree  of 
election  not  because  of  the  merit  of  its  worthiness,  but  because 
of  its  apprehending  Christ.  On  the  other  hand,  the  cause  of 
reprobation  is  not  Christ  but  the  rejection  of  Christ  by  unbelief 
and  resistance  offered  to  the  order  established  by  God."  (§  73, 
174.) 

"Huber  denies  that  foreseen  faith  in  any  way  enters  the 
decree  of  election,  since  Paul  teaches  explicitly  (Eph.  1)  that 
God  has  revealed  to  us  this  mystery  as  a  mystery  of  His  will 
according  to  the  good  pleasure  which  He  purposed  in  Himself.* 

From  this  he  draws  the  conclusion,  that  nothing  coming 
from  without,  like  foreseen  faith  and  perseverance,  enters  into 
the  decree  of  election,  but  that  its  origin  and  completions  is  in 
the  mere  will  of  God  and  in  the  good  pleasure  which  He  had  in 
His  Son.  It  is  certain  that  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  cause  mov- 
ing God  to  form  the  decree,  for  one^  thing,  to  reconcile  unto 
Himself  all  without  a  difference,  and  for  another,  to  elect  unto 
eternal  life  only  those  who  believe.  When  the  question  is  put  in 
this  shape,  our  (Lutheran)  churches  also  claim  that  we  must 
go  back  to  God's  mercy  alone.  For  that  He  desires  in  this  way 
to  save  those  who  believe,  to  what  could  we  ascribe  it  but  to 
the  good  pleasure  of  God?  For  in  us  He  found  nothing  that 
would  have  been  worthy  of  election.  Nor  did  we  with  our  faith 
anticipate  God  wlien  He  elected;  neither  do  we  assert  that  faith 
is  the  cause  and  the  origin  of  election,  as  is  imputed  to  us.  And 
yet  since  God  desired  to  save  us  only  in  Christ,  and  since  election 

*  In  the  same  sen.se  and  for  the  same  reason  Missouri  now  desires  to 
expel  faith  from  the  "election  in  Christ."  "It  is  indeed  written"  —  we  read 
in  "L.  u.  W.",  '80,  354  — :  "  'According  as  He  hath  chosen  us  through 
Him',  or,  according  to  the  original  text,  'in  Him';  but  where  is  it  writ- 
ten: According  as  He  hath  chosen  us  as  being  in  Him?  and  who  dares 
to  foist  these  little  words  of  his  own  upon  the  Holy  Spirit?"  etc.  And  on 
page  230:  "If  we  add  to  'in  Christ':  'in  as  far  as  He  is  ours  by  faith,  in 
so  far  as  God  foresaw  faith  in  Christ',  this  addition  is  nothing  but  an  un- 
founded gloss,  just  as  little  as"  —  (yea,  in  very  truth:  "just  as  little  as"! 
although  the  writer  undoubtedly  meant  to  say:  "just  as")  —  "the  exegesis: 
'us  who  are  in  Christ',  which  introduces  a  thought  not  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures.  They  do  violence  to  the  Scriptures  and  mix  the  clear  utter- 
ances of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  human  opinions  who  seek  to  deduct  and  to 
prove  the  theory  of  foreseen  faith  from  the  Scriptures."  The  great  pity 
is  that  all  these  instructions  arrived  too  late  for  the  fathers! 


396  Intuitu  Fidei. 

was  to  become  ours  only  as  regard  is  had  to  Christ  (unter  Riick- 
sichtnahme  auf  Christum)  therefore  God  in  our  election  had  a 
certain  regard  to  faith.*  And  thus  faith  enters  election,  not 
as  something  coming  from  without  or  as  something  foreign,  but 
as  something  related  and  joined  to  that  to  which  it  is  related" 
(tanquam  Relatum  Correlato  junctum  Electionem  ingreditur. 
§  77-80). 


JOHN  WEBER. 


John  Weberf  writes:  "There  is  no  doubt  that  God  does  all 
He  wills,  and  no  one  is  able  to  hinder  Him.  There  is  where  the 
knotty  problem  lies,  how  and  in  what  mode  or  order  God  wills 
to  save  or  to  elect.  For  this  took  place  either  absolute,  without 
any  regard  to  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  or  ordinate,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  through  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  we  would  believe 
perseveringly  in  time.  The  former  is  false,  the  latter  true.  For 
we  are  not  chosen  simply  and  without  regard  to  anything,  but 
in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  Eph.  1.  But,  since 
no  one  can  be  in  Christ  except  through  faith  without  which  it 
is  impossible  to  please  God,  Heb.  11,  therefore  St.  Paul  declares, 
Rom.  8,  that  God  (for  whom  all  the  future  is  present)  has  chosen 
those  to  be  children  and  heirs  of  everlasting  joys  of  whom  He 
foresaw  in  eternity  that  in  time  they  would  believe  constantly  in 
Christ  Jesus  through  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Wherefore 
he  calls  them  mellontas  pisteuein,  future  believers,  1  Tim.  1,  16. 
Now  as  many  of  these  future  believers  as  God  in  eternity  saw 
and  therefore  ordained  unto  life,  so  many  and  no  more  will  come 
to  believe  in  time.  Acts  13,  48.  Because  if  God  had  seen  that 
more  of  them  would  believe,  then  He  would  have  ordained  more 
of  them  unto  eternal  life.  Since,  however.  He  saw  that  these 
only  and  no  more  would  believe,  therefore  He  ordained  these 
only  unto  life,  and  accordingly  so  many  only  have  believed. 
According  to  this  order  God  would  save  all  men,  and  no  devil, 
sin,  death,  or  hell  shall  prevent  or  resist  Him.  For  this  reason 
neither  height,  nor  depth,  nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come. 


*  RESPECTUM  aliquem  ad  fidem  habuit.  Eirphasized  thus  by  Bal- 
duin  himself. 

t  He  studied  at  Giessen,  where  he  published  writings  against  the  Cal- 
vinists  already  in  1610.  In  1611  he  was  the  court-preacher  of  the  Count 
at  Gleichen. 


John   Weber.  397 

nor  death,  nor  life,  nor  any  other  creature  is  able  to  separate 
those  who  are  chosen  in  Christ  according  to  this  order  of  God, 
from  the  love  of  God  which  is  (not  in  a  mere  decree,  but)  in 
Christ  Jesus,  our  Lord,  Rom.  8.  And  the  Lord  Himself  declares 
that  no  one  shall  pluck  His  sheep  (who  become  His  sheep 
through  faith  in  Him,  and  remain  His  sheep  as  long  as  they 
believe,  Rom.  11,  21)  out  of  His  hand,  John  10.  From  this  im- 
movable purpose  of  God  (namely  that  no  one  shall  perish  who 
believes  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  He  is  made  unto  him  wisdom, 
and  redemption,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification)  St.  John 
also  demonstrates  and  declares  concerning  these  believers  that 
they  overcome  the  world,  the  prince  of  darkness,  and  all  his 
allies.  But  whosoever  does  not  secure  salvation  according  to 
this  order  of  God  cannot  be  written  and  recorded  in  the  book 
of  the  elect.  For  this  is  the  eternal,  well-pleasing  will  of  God, 
according  to  which  He  will  bring  men  to  salvation,  that  they 
are  to  believe  in  Christ  and  abide  in  faith  and  in  a  good  con- 
science till  the  end,  Matt.  24.  He  who  fails  in  this  will  fare 
as  Samuel  declared  to  King  Saul,  1  Sam.  13:  'Thou  hast  done 
foolishly :  thou  hast  not  kept  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  thy 
God,  which  He  commanded  thee:  for  now  would  the  Lord  have 
established  thy  kingdom  (thy  salvation)  for  ever.  But  now  thy 
kingdom  (thy  salvation)  shall  not  continue.'  So  also  St.  Paul 
declares:  'And  thou  standest  by  faith.  Behold  therefore  the 
goodness  and  severity  of  God:  on  them  which  fell,  severity;  but 
toward  thee,  goodness,  if  thou  continue  in  His  goodness;  other- 
wise thou  shalt  also  be  cut  olif,'  Rom.  11."  (Guide  of  the  Ancient 
and  Correct  Faith,  pag.  87-89.) 

"This,  however,  does  not  establish  what  Dr.  Huber  teaches: 
Since  Christ  obtained  and  prepared  a  ransom  for  each  and  every 
man,  therefore  all  men  are  chosen  unto  eternal  life  in  Christ  from 
eternity.  No;  the  dance  requires  more  than  a  pair  of  red  shoes. 
It  is  not  sufficient  for  the  decree  of  predestination  that  God  kill 
His  oxen  and  prepare  everything  on  His  part,  the  invited  guest 
must  also  appear  by  faith  in  Christ  and  remain  till  the  end  of 
the  feast.  On  these  two  requirements  God  has  had  His  eye 
from  eternity.  For  those  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would 
appear  and  continue  at  this  heavenly  feast,  and  none  others  did 
He  elect  in  Christ  that  they  should  be  heirs  of  God  and  co-heirs 
of  Christ,  Rom.  7,  18.  This  appears  incontrovertibly  from  the 
judgment  of  Christ,  passed  on  His  own  invited  guests,  where 


398  Intuitu  Fidei. 

He  calls  those  who  came  in  faith  the  'chosen,'  those  who  remain 
away  only  the  called.  Besides,  if  all  men  are,  properly  speaking, 
elected,  then  the  Turks,  heathen,  and  unbelievers  would  also 
have  to  be  'children  of  God  and  co-heirs  of  Christ.'  Because 
God's  predestination  takes  place  per  modum  adoptionis  (after 
the  manner  of  adoption);  hence:  him  whom  God  elects  He 
receives  as  His  child  and  heir."     (P.  95.) 


DAVID  RUNQE. 


David  Runge*  writes:  "God  indeed  desires  to  save  all  men, 
but  not  absolutely,  i.  e,  without  the  limitation  of  an  order,  no 
matter  what  they  may  do,  whether  they  believe  in  Christ  or  do 
not  believe,  whether  they  repent  or  do  not  repent.  This  Huber- 
ian  decree  is  nowhere  revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  Scriptures  add  the  declaration  concerning  the  order 
according  to  which  God  is  ready  to  save  us.  Ezek.  33:  As  I  live, 
saith  the  Lord,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked, 
but  that  he  may  turn  and  live.  1  Tim.  2 :  God  will  have  all  men 
to  be  saved  and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth. 
2  Peter  3:  God  is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that 
all  should  come  to  repentance.  Thus  Paul  connects  our  election 
with  'foreknowledge,'  Rom.  8.  Likewise  Peter,  1  Epistle,  1. 
And  since  the  Lord  knew,  in  His  wisdom  from  all  eternity,  as 
in  an  act  and  survey  most  perfectly  present,  that  all  men  would 
not  believe  and  use  correctly  the  order  of  salvation  He  proposed, 
therefore  He  determined,  according  to  His  eternal  and  infallible 
foreknowledge,  to  save  those  who  would  believe,  and  to  damn 
those  who  would  not  believe.  John  3:  He  that  believeth  on 
the  Son  hath  everlasting  life:  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son 
shall  not  see  life.  These  decrees  of  the  subsequent  will  of  God, 
the  first  of  which  concerns  election,  and  the  second  reprobation, 
were  formed  from  eternity  in  the  secret  counsel  of  God,  and 
did  not  originate  in  time  after  the  application.     Yet  He  desired 

*  Born  1554  at  Greifswalde,  the  son  of  Jacob  Runge  who  had  studied 
under  Luther  at  Wittenberg  and  did  not  die  till  1597  as  professor  at  Greifs- 
walde. David  studied  at  first  in  Stettin,  then  in  Tuebingen  (under  Jacob 
Andrese  and  Jacob  Heerbrandt),  finally  also  at  Wittenberg  under  Hunnius, 
whom  he  accompanied  to  Regensburg  for  the  great  doctrinal  debate  with 
the  Jesuits  after  he  had  become  his  colleague  as  professor  of  theology. 
Died  1604. 


David  Runge.  399' 

that  all  men  without  exception  should  believe  in  the  Son  and 
obtain  everlasting  salvation.  Since,  however,  the  greater  part 
would  prevent  the  divine  generation  of  faith  in  them  through 
their  obstinate  wickedness  and  would  reject  the  Word  (Acts  13,. 
46),  therefore  He  has  rejected  them  from  eternity  (not  because 
of  an  absolute  hatred  on  His  part,  or  because  of  His  good  pleas- 
ure, but)  because  of  His  just  indignation  at  their  final  unbelief,. 
according  to  the  clear  declaration  of  Paul,  Rom.  11,  20:  Because 
of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  i.  e.  cut  away  out  of  the  true 
olive  tree.  Those,  however,  who  would  believe  through  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  He  had  chosen  unto  salvation  from 
eternity,  not  for  the  sake  of  their  foreseen  faith  as  a  quality 
inhering  in  them,  but  solely  through  Christ  and  for  the  sake  of 
Christ  as  apprehended  by  faith.  Eph.  1:  God  hath  chosen  us  in 
Christ  unto  salvation  in  belief  of  the  truth.  And  since  these 
persons,  compared  with  the  former  class,  are  less  in  number,, 
it  is  said:  Few  are  chosen,  and:  The  remnant  according  to  the 
election  of  grace  will  be  saved.  Not  many  wise,  noble,  mighty 
according  to  the  flesh  are  called,  but  God  hath  chosen  the  foolish 
things  of  the  world  to  bring  to  nought  things  that  are.  The 
cause  of  this  particularity,  however,  dare  not  be  attributed  to 
God,*  as  though  it  was  His  will,  that  only  a  few  should  believe,, 
and  that  the  rest  should  perish,  but  the  cause  must  be  attributed 
to  the  devil  and  to  men.  For  if  a  greater  number  had  believed 
in  Christ,  this  fact  would  not  have  remained  hidden  from  God, 
who  knows  all  things,  and  they  would,  accordingly,  have  been 
recorded  from  eternity  in  the  number  of  the  elect.  —  We  must 
therefore  distinguish  closely  between  the  decrees  of  the  ante- 
cedent and  of  the  subsequent  will.  In  the  former  God  decrees 
the  restitution  of  the  human  race,  the  mission  of  His  Son  and 
His  effective  propitiation  for  all  men,  the  calling  of  all  to  use 
and  enjoy  this  blessing;  and  He  wills.  He  desires  earnestly.  He 
stipulates,  He  decrees  that  all  men  shall  believe  and  obtain  sal- 
vation.    In  the  subsequent  will  the  order  of  salvation  is   con- 

*  As  is  done  by  Missouri  and  the  Cslvinists,  claiming  in  regard  to  the 
"saparation  of  persons"  that  God  deals  according  to  His  "free  grace",. 
His  "free  election";  that  He  owes  no  man  anythmg  and  therefore  deals  as. 
He  pleases;  that  He  makes  use  of  His  "sovereign  right"  to  have  mercy 
on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  and  to  harden  whom  He  will  harden;  that 
therefore  experience  also  shows,  God  does  not  remove  in  the  case  of 
millions  of  men  the  very  same  resistance  which,  He  could  just  as.  easily 
remove  as  in  the  case  of  the  rest!  ! 


400  Intuitu  Fidei. 

sidered,  not  as  this  order  is  established  by  God,  but  as  it  is  used 
by  men.  Since  God  now  sees  that  some  would  despise  it,  others 
use  it.  He  decrees  concerning  the  former  that  they  shall  perish 
as  His  enemies  and  despisers;  but  concerning  the  latter,  of  whom 
He  foresees  that  they  would  rightly  use  this  order  and  believe  in 
Christ,  He  decrees  the  contrary^  that  they  shall  enjoy  everlasting 
salvation.  And  since  God's  decrees  are  immutable,  it  is  impos- 
sible that  the  finally  impenitent,  in  so  far  as  they  are  and  remain 
such,  should  be  saved,  and  vice  versa  that  those  who  believe  to 
the  end  (who  are  otherwise  termed  the  elect)  should  perish. 
Matt.  24."     (Comment,  in  Gen.  p.  763.) 

Runge  writes  again:  "The  twofold  willing  of  God,  that  of 
compassion  as  well  as  that  of  reprobation,  dare  not  be  referred  to 
an  absolute  will  of  God,  depending  only  upon  the  mere  uncon- 
ditional good  pleasure  of  God,  but  upon  the  ordered  will  revealed 
in  the  Word.  For  the  Lord  shows  whom  He  is  ready  to  em- 
brace with  His  mercy,  namely  as  many  as  flee  to  Christ  in  true 
faith.  But  it  is  His  will,  that  all  men  without  exception  may  do 
this,  1  Tim.  2.  On  the  other  hand,  He  teaches  that  He  will  pun- 
ish all  who  despise  His  Word  with  blindness  and  obduracy.  Is.  6. 
And  this  will  of  God  does  not  contradict  the  former,  but  is  subor- 
dinate to  it.  For  the  former  will,  which  Damascenus  calls  the 
antecedent  (lib.  2,  cap.  29),  considers  the  means  of  salvation,  as 
they  are  placed  before  all  men  and  directed  to  the  object  fixed 
by  God,  viz..  Christ  and  His  merit  and  the  call  through  the  Word 
and  Sacrament.  In  this  will  there  is  but  one  decree  of  one  kind, 
according  to  which  God  desires  that  all  may  believe  and  be  saved. 
The  other  will  is  called  the  subsequent  will,  and  considers  the 
same  means  as  they  are  either  used  or  neglected  by  men.*     This 

*  We  note  by  the  way  that  this  distinction  between  the  antecedent  and 
the  subsequent  will  of  God  is  emphasized  and  utilized  throughout  by  the 
F.  C.  theologians  and  their  immediate  pupils.  This  distinction,  however, 
Missouri  rejects  in  the  doctrine  of  election,  since,  if  it  were  accepted,  not 
only  non-election  but  also  election  would  have  to  be  understood  as  having 
taken  place  with  regard  to  man's  foreseen  conduct.  It  is  strange,  how- 
ever, that  Missouri  finds  it  necessary  to  let  this  distinction  between  the 
antecedent  and  the  subsequent  will  stand  in  the  case  of  the  non-elect. 
In  their  case  God  looks  first  to  their  future  conduct  toward  the  order  of 
grace,  before  He  decides  whether  they  shall  be  among  the  elect  or  not. 
The  whole  thing  evidently  leads  to  a  double  totally  dififerent  will  of  grace 
in  the  heart  of  God.  For  as  far  as  the  elect  are  concerned  God  left  them 
no  choice  in  regard  to  their  salvation  or  damnation,  but  took  their  election 
into  His  own  hand  from  the  start  and  predestinated  them  unconditionally 


David  Riinge.  401 

gives  rise  to  a  twofold  decree  in  the  subsequent  will,  one  in  re- 
gard to  those  who  actually  believe  and  to  whom  everlasting  sal- 
vation is  promised,  John  3.  The  other  in  regard  to  those  who 
are  actually  unbelieving,  and  this  in  so  far  as  they  are  such  and 
persist  in  unbelief.  To  these  everlasting  damnation  is  announced, 
Mark  IG:  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.  John  3:  He 
that  believeth  not  the  Son,  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him. 
These  passages  explain  Paul's  sentence  and  turn  our  hearts  from 
the  consideration  of  the  hidden  God  to  that  of  the  revealed  God. 
Therefore,  although  our  election  has  its  foundation  and  origin  in 
the  universal  love  of  God  toward  the  whole  world  and  in  His 
antecedent  will,  it  is  nevertheless  brought  to  its  final  goal  and 
conclusion  only  by  a  decree  of  the  subsequent  will.  Rom.  8,  29; 
1  Peter  1,  2.  In  this  doctrine,  therefore,  precipitous  clififs  must 
be  avoided  on  either  hand,  here  that  of  Calvinism,  there  that  of 
Huberianism.  Calvinism  invents  the  doctrine,  that  certain  per- 
sons, who  must  now  of  necessity  be  saved,  are  elected  unto  eternal 
life  by  an  unconditional  and  absolute  will,*  while  all  the  rest  of 
the  human  race  has  been  rejected  without  regard  to  their  unbe- 


unto  the  attainment  of  salvation.  To  the  rest  God  declares:  The  election 
and  decision  of  the  final  outcome  shall  lie  in  your  hand,  not  in  mine. 
Hence:  grace  with  election  for  the  elect,  grace  without  election  on  God's 
part  for  the  non-elect.  Two  different  wills  of  grace!  With  and  without 
the  "guarantee"  of  salvation! 

*  The  very  same  thing  Missouri  teaches,  and  thus  agrees  in  the  very 
bottom  of  its  doctrine  of  election  with  Calvin.  For  1)  Missouri  teaches 
that  not  foreseen  believers  as  such  were  elected  unto  life,  but  only  "certain 
persons"  who  still  "lie  in  the  universal  depravity"  with  the  rest;  2)  it  was 
not  Christ's  merit  apprehended  by  faith,  which  conditioned  according  to 
God's  foresight  "the  separation  of  persons"  into  elect-unto-life  and  non- 
elect-unto-life,  but  only  the  secret,  arbitrary,  free  purpose,  the  hidden  good 
pleasure  of  God;  3)  they  who  are  thus  elected  must  be  saved,  the  rest 
will  with  certainty  not  be  saved,  as  surely  as  God  is  God.  Cf.  Report  of 
'77,  p.  24.  "God  has  elected  a  number  of  men  unto  salvation  already  from 
eternity;  He  has  decreed  these  shall  and  must  be  saved;  and  as  surely  as 
God  is  God,  so  surely  these  will  be  saved  and  none  besides  these."  Now 
if  this  had  been  said  according  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession  of 
foreseen  constant  believers  as  such,  the  doctrine  would  be  altogether  cor- 
rect and  would  agree  perfectly  with  the  revealed  universal  counsel  of  sal- 
vation. But  Missouri  most  decidedly  rejects  the  "Intuitu  fidei  theory"  of 
the  revealed  God  and  emphasizes  over  against  it,  as  the  genuine  key  of 
the  doctrine  of  election,  Calvin's  "secret  good  pleasure"  which  elected  unto 
salvation  without  a  revealed  rule.  Only  a  sophist  could  appeal  to  the 
fact,  that  the  sentence  can  indeed  be  understood  in  the  orthodox  way. 


402  Intuitic  Fidei. 

lief  by  the  mere  good  pleasvire  of  God.*  This  notion  destroys  the 
universal  promises  of  the  Gospel,  annuls  the  merit  of  Christ  ob- 
tained for  all  men,  robs  the  universal  call  of  all  efficacy  on  the 
part  of  God  and  His  offer,  and  ascribes  to  God,  when  He  laments 
human  misery  and  our  destruction,  a  hypocritital  dissimulation 
and  a  contradiction  between  His  words  and  the  real  meaning 
of  His  heart.  Besides,  this  doctrine  fills  men's  hearts  with  epicu- 
rean security  and  presumptuousness,  as  though  one  could  be 
absolutely  certain  of  the  treasure  of  eternal  salvation.  Huber- 
ianism,  on  the  other  hand,  imagining  that  God  has  elected  al! 
men  in  Christ  vmto  salvation,  whether  they  believe  or  not,  ex- 
cludes the  second  part  of  the  divine  order,  namely  faith  appre- 
hending the  Mediator,  from  the  decree  of  election,  and  claims, 
in  contradiction  to  the  voice  and  declaration  of  the  entire  Scrip- 
tures, that  all  men  (even  those  termed  in  the  Scriptures  reprobate, 
dogs,  swine,  men  without  God,  aliens  to  the  covenants  of  God)  are 
truly  and  properly  the  'elect'  of  God  and  the  beloved  of  God. 
The  middle  way  between  these  two  extremes  (Calvinism  and  Hu- 
berianism)  is  taken  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  concerning  the 
ordered  election  of  the  subsequent  will,  maintaining  the  truth 
and  evangelical  universality  of  the  promises  of  grace,  as  well  as 
distinguishing  the  elect  from  the  reprobate  by  the  mark  of  faith. '^ 
(Comment,  in  Ex.,  p.  320.) 


*  This,  to  be  sure,  Missouri  docs  not  say;  on  the  contrary,  it  claims 
to  oppose  Calvin  and  all  Calvinism  most  decidedly  in  the  doctrine  of 
reprobation.  It  would  like,  as  it  seems,  to  glue  together  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  election,  in  so  far  as  it  excludes  regard  to  future  faith,  and  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  reprobation,  which  includes  and  presupposes  regard 
to  foreseen  unbelief.  A  curious  yea-and-nay-theology!  If  you  inquire  in 
general:  Does  God  look  to  faith  in  election  unto  salvation?  —  the  answer 
is:  "Nevermore!  That  would  be  nothing  but  the  Intuitu  fidei  theory 
of  our  fathers  who  have  deviated  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Symbol, 
the  theory  we  have  so  vehemently  interdicted  and  reviled!"  But  if  you  ask 
especially:  How  does  it  come  that  the  non-elect  were  not  also  elected 
unto  salvation?  —  then  the  answer  is:  "God  regarded  faith,  and  since  He 
did  not  foresee  faith.  He  could  not  elect  these,  like  the  elect,  unto  salva- 
tion (and  unto  faith)."  —  As  often,  however,  as  Missouri  "goes  deeper",, 
it  appears  that  it  teaches  a  reprobation  unto  unbelief  just  as  regardless  as 
its  election  unto  belief.  For,  we  are  told,  God  here,  in  irreconcilable  con- 
tradiction to  His  universal  will  of  grace,  makes  use  of  the  "sovereign 
right",  to  have  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  and  to  harden  whom 
He  will  harden!     This  surely  means:   to  reject  whom  He  will  reject! 


George  Stanipel — Joachim  ZeJuier.  408 

GEORGE  STAMPEL. 

George  Stampel*  writes.  "Election  or  predestination  is  the 
eternal  decree  or  purpose  in  the  heart  of  God,  according  to  which, 
in  unmerited  goodness,  and  in  accord  with  the  good  pleasure  of 
His  will,  for  the  manifestation  of  His  glorious  grace,  He  chose 
in  Christ,  or  for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  a  church  from 
among  the  fallen  and  justly  condemned  human  race,  and  pre- 
destinated unto  eternal  life  all  those  of  whom  He  foreknew  that 
they  would  apprehend  Christ  in  constant  faith,  by  virtue  of  the 
assisting  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  Word  and  Sac- 
rament. Or:  It  is  the  decree  of  God  to  save  men  through 
Christ."  (Hypotyposis  Theol.,  p.  62.) — "Predestination,  how- 
ever, does  not  embrace  merely  the  work  of  salvation  in  general, 
but  also  the  persons  themselves;  yet  not  all  men  simply,  but  only 
certain  ones  and  a  few;  yet  not  as  our  reason  or  as  the  opinion 
of  the  Law  may  estimate  them,  nor  as  outward  appearance  may 
distinguish  them  as  preferable  to  others,  but  those  who  have  been 
implanted  in  Christ  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel 
through  Baptism  (Gal.  3,  27;  Tit.  3,  5),  who  hear  the  voice  of  the 
true  Shepherd  (John  10,  27),  who  thirst  after  righteousness  (Matt. 
5,  6),  who  embrace  it  by  faith  (Rom.  8,  2jO;  Acts  13,  48),  who  have 
the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (Rom.  8,  16),  and  who  by 
prayer  as  the  seal  of  election  (2  Tim.  2,  19),  by  sanctification  of 
life  whereunto  they  are  called  (Eph.  1,  4),  by  piety  and  patience 
make  their  calling  and  election  sure  (2  Peter  1,  5,  10),  and  per- 
severe to  the  end  (Matt.  10,  22;  24,  13;  Rom.  8,  29-30.")  (Page 
65.) 

JOACHIM  ZEHNER. 

Joachim  Zehnerf  writes  in  his  Compend  of  Theology,  pub- 
lished in  1607:  "What  is  predestination?  It  is  the  decree  or 
purpose  of  God's  will,  formed  from  eternity  according  to  His 
foreknowledge,  by  which  God  has  ordained  unto  eternal  Hfe  all 
those  who  would  perseveringly  believe  in  Christ.     What  is  God's 

*  Born  1561  at  Soltwedel  in  the  March  (of  Brandenburg);  studied  at 
Helmstaedt,  Tuebingen,  and  Rostock;  since  1597  professor  in  Frankfurt 
on  the  Oder;    since  1611  Superintendent  at  Luebeck.     Died  1622. 

t  Born  1566  in  Themar;  studied  at  Schleusingen  and  Wittenberg; 
was  made  Lector  at  Schleusingen  and  General  Superintendent  in  the  Hen- 
neberg  territory.     Died  1612. 


404  Inhiihi  Fidei. 

antecedent  will?  It  is  God's  eternal  decree  declaring  that  He 
earnestly  and  constantly  desires  all  men  to  be  saved  through  faith 
in  Christ.  This  will  of  God  is  universal  and  rests  on  three  in- 
vincible foundations:  1)  The  universal  love  cr  mercy  of  God; 
2)  the  universal  and  sufficient  merit  of  Christ;  3)  the  universal  call 
of  all  men.  What  is  God's  subsequent  will?  It  is  God's  eternal 
decree  to  save  believers  and  to  damn  unbelievers.  This  will  be- 
comes a  particular  will,  not  through  God's  fault,  but  through 
fault  of  men,  who  despise  the  order  of  election  instituted  by  God 
and  will  not  appropriate  the  grace  offered  through  Christ.  .  .  . 
What  extremes  must  be  avoided  in  this  article?  1)  Absolute 
particularity,  i.  e.  the  ravings  of  the  Calvinists,  who  imagine  that 
by  an  absolute  and  unconditional  will  or  decree,  without  any  re- 
gard whatever  to  faith  or  unbelief,  God  has  chosen  some  unto  life, 
and  rejected  the  rest  so  that  they  could  never  be  saved.  2)  Ab- 
solute universality  or  the  new  dogma  of  Huber,  who  endeavors 
to  expel  regard  to  faith  from  the  eternal  act  of  election,  and  to 
assert  a  universal  election  of  all  men. 


ESAIAS  SILBERSCHLAQ. 

Esaias  Silberschlag*  delivered  at  Erfurt  in  1604  "Six  ser- 
mons elucidating  correctly  and  thoroughly,  from  the  Word  of 
God  and  the  consensus  of  the  most  important  teachers  of  the 
church,  the  article  concerning  God's  eternal  predestination  and 
election."  We  quote  only  a  few  of  the  most  striking  passages. 
"We  do  not  say  with  Puccius  that  God  has  predestinated  and 
elected  all  men  without  distinction  unto  salvation.  Nor  with 
Calvin,  that  God  has  predestinated  and  ordained  only  according 
to  His  mere  counsel  and  pleasure  some  few  men  unto  salvation 
and  the  greater  part  of  the  human  race  unto  damnation.  Nor 
with  the  Pelagians,  that  God  considered  future  works,  and  for 
the  sake  of  these  predestinated  some  unto  life  and  others  unto 


*  Born  1560  at  Erfurt;  was  made  Rector  of  the  school  for  preachers 
in  this  city  in  1582;  and  Doctor  of  Theology  at  Marburg  in  1585.  He 
died  in  1606  at  Erfurt  as  professor  of  theology  and  Senior  of  the  Minis- 
terium.  He  was  the  son  of  George  Silberschlag,  who  together  with  An- 
drew Poach  in  1564  maintained  the  universality  of  predestination,  in  so  far 
as  God  wants  all  men  to  believe  in  Christ  and  be  saved  through  Christ. 
Such  a  conditional  universality  of  election  is  also  taught  by  the  Script- 
ures and  the  Confession. 


Esaias  Silberschlag.  40& 

death.  On  the  contrary  (we  teach)  with  the  Scriptures  and  the 
important  ancient  teachers  of  the  church  that  God  foresaw  and 
regarded  the  faith  of  those  who  would  in  the  future  believe  in 
Jesus  Christ,  in  whom  and  for  the  sake  of  whom  we  are  chosen 
unto  salvation,  Eph.  1,  and  who  would  remain  constant  in  their 
faith  till  the  end.  Wherefore,  on  the  other  hand.  He  ordained 
unto  damnation  those  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would  cast 
to  the  winds  the  means  whereby  we  come  to  faith,  and  that  they 
would  despise  God's  counsel  regarding  themselves,  Luke  7,  and 
thus  remain  in  unbelief,,  so  that  they  shall  be  judged  because  they 
do  not  believe  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God» 
John  3." 

On  Rom.  8,  20  (hous  proegno)  Silberschlag  remarks :  "Cal- 
vin wants  to  take  'foreknow'  in  this  passage  as  signifying  to  re- 
ceive unto  adoption,  whereby  God  has  always  distinguished  His 
children  from  the  damned.  .  .  .  But  such  glosses  will  not  stand 
the  test  here.  It  would  be  hard  for  Calvin  to  prove  that  fore- 
sight means  to  receive  as  one's  child.  Where  are  other  passages 
exhibiting  such  a  use  of  the  word?  .  .  .  Therefore,  it  will  be  best 
for  us  to  keep  in  all  simplicity  the  common  signification  of  the 
word,  and  to  say,  that  God  has  foreseen  and  regarded  something- 
when  He  elected  us  unto  salvation  in  the  beginning,  and  that  He 
did  not  absolutely  form  a  mere  decree,  and  elect  the  one  unto 
salvation,  and  reject  the  other  unto  damnation,  simply  accord- 
ing to  His  mere  will.  Hence  Ambrosius  says  rightly  in  regard 
to  these  words:  'Those  are  called  according  to  the  purpose,  of 
whom  God  foresaw  that  they  would  believe,  so  that  He  would 
know  them  before  they  would  believe.'  " 

"What  praescire  (foreknow)  and  praegnoscere,  (foreknow) 
mean  the  children  in  the  schools  know.  These  words  mean  to 
foreknow  something,  to  perceive,  note,  and  understand  some- 
thing in  advance.  This,  however,  does  not  refer  to  the  substance 
or  nature  of  man,  otherwise  they  would  all  be  elected  unto  eternal 
life,  because  God  foresaw  all,  who  would  come  on  earth,  as  long 
as  the  world  would  stand.  Hence  it  must  be  understood  of  some- 
thing else,  of  something  in  or  about  man.  But  there  is  nothing 
in  man,  belonging  to  His  Christianity,  except  faith  and  good 
works,  and  since  it  could  not  have  been  works,  it  must  have  been 
faith.  This  is  a  fundamental  point  of  our  doctrine  and  confes- 
sion in  this  article  over  against  Calvin,  who  would  force  a  mere 
decree  upon  God  and  admit  no  prescience  here,  in  spite  of  the 


406  Inhdhi  Fidei. 

fact,  that  the  two  apostles  mentioned  state  and  demand  it  so 
clearly." 

"The  article  concerning  predestination  must  be  taken  and 
studied  from  the  Gospel.  Where  this  is  taught,  there  will  soon 
be  people  who  conclude:  Since  the  Gospel  teaches  that  Christ 
died  for  all,  and  that  God  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  there- 
fore all  men  must  now  be  elected  and  predestinated  unto  salva- 
tion. They  consider  indeed  Christ's  universal  merit,  but  they 
forget  the  application,  and  do  not  consider  that  Christ  is  of  no 
benefit  to  us  if  we  do  not  grasp  Him  by  faith  and  appropriate 
His  benefits.  As  St.  Paul  writes.  Gal.  5,  concerning  those  who 
attempt  to  become  just  through  the  Law  of  Moses,  that  Christ 
profits  them  nothing,  and  that  they  have  lost  Christ.  They  too 
look  upon  God's  favorable  will,  which  He  bears  antecedenter 
(antecedently)  towards  all  men  who  are  His  creatures,  but  fail 
to  consider  that  He  nevertheless  would  save  only  those  who  be- 
lieve in  Christ.  Consequently,  if  we  desire  to  be  undeceived  in 
this  matter,  we  must  look  to  Christ  in  His  merit  in  so  far  as  He 
becomes  ours,  and  to  God's  will  and  promises  in  so  far  as  we  gov- 
ern ourselves  according  to  them  and  embrace  and  apprehend 
them. 

"That  God  did  not  make  a  mere  decree,  but  regarded  some- 
thing certain  in  His  work,  whereby  He  chose  us  unto  salvation,  is 
established  by  passages  of  Scripture,  as  quoted  above.  Rom.  8: 
Whom  He  did  foreknow  He  also  did  predestinate.  Rom.  11: 
God  hath  not  cast  away  His  people  which  He  foreknew.  1  Peter 
1:  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father. 
God  knows  all  things  that  have  taken  place  and  that  shall  yet 
take  place.  He  knows  all  the  hairs  of  our  head,  Matt,  10,  knows 
and  understands  all  our  thoughts  afar  of¥,  and  there  is  not  a 
word  in  our  tongue  that  He  knows  it  not  altogether.  His  under- 
standing is  unsearchable  and  infinite,  Is.  40;  Ps.  147.  Did  He 
not  then  foresee  before  the  creation  of  man  and  of  the  world  how 
each  would  act  in  his  life  and  conduct  himself?  This,  therefore. 
His  election  took  into  account,  whereby  He  predestinated  whom 
He  foresaw.  Hence  prescience  must  of  necessity  belong  to  pre- 
destination. But  since  God  could  not  have  looked  upon  works, 
as  was  clearly  proven  above,  it  must,  without  contradiction,  have 
been  faith  to  which  God  by  His  prescience  looked.  This  is  cer- 
tain 1)  because  the  article  of  predestination  does  not  belong  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Law  which  deals  with  works,  but  to  the  Gos- 


Esaias  Silberschlag.  407 

pel  which  is  a  doctrine  of  faith,  as  St.  Paul  teaches,  2  Tim.  1. 
Therefore  this  article  is  called  the  word  of  faith,  Rom.  10.  There- 
fore God  has  regarded  nothing  in  us,  in  our  election  unto  salva- 
tion, save  only  faith  which  apprehends  Christ  and  is  required  of 
us  in  the  Gospel.  2)  Rom.  11  teaches  that  our  election  unto  sal- 
vation is  only  a  work  of  grace.  But  where  there  is  grace,  this 
does  away  with  the  merit  of  works,  and  faith  alone  is  required, 
whereby  we  apprehend  Christ  and  all  His  benefits.  And  we  can 
by  no  means  receive  grace,  unless  we  believe  in  Christ,  the  sole 
and  living  throne  of  grace,  John  3.  3)  Because  St.  Paul  writes, 
Eph.  1,  that  we  are  chosen  in  Jesus  Christ.  And  he  testifies  fur- 
thermore, Eph.  3,  that  Christ  dwells  in  our  hearts  through  faith. 
.  .  .  Once  more,  it  can  only  be  faith  in  Christ  that  God  foresaw 
when  He  elected  us  unto  life.  This  appears  4)  in  the  fact,  that 
the  Gospel  combines  the  two  articles,  that  concerning  predesti- 
nation, and  that  concerning  our  justification  before  God,  as  is 
shown  by  2  Tim.  1  and  Rom.  8.  From  this  it  must  follow  that 
we  dare  not  accept  one  cause  in  the  article  of  justification  and 
another  in  the  article  of  predestination,  as  Philippus  Melanchton 
teaches  in  a  Christian  and  good  manner  in  his  locis  communibus. 
As  we  are  now  justified  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  when  we  embrace 
Him  by  faith,  so  we  have  been  chosen  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world  unto  eternal  life  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  whom  we  would 
•embrace  in  the  future  by  faith.  5)  When  the  apostle.  Tit.  1,  calls 
saving  faith  the  faith  of  the  elect,  he  desires  to  teach  that  God 
■did  not  look  to  works,  but  especially  to  faith,  and  that  He  chose 
the  elect  for  Christ's  sake  in  whom  they  believe.  ...  6)  We 
prove  our  doctrine  and  confession  also  from  the  testimony  of 
the  apostle,  when  he  declares,  Heb.  11:  Without  faith  it  is  im- 
possible to  please  God.  When  God  chose  us  unto  salvation.  He 
chose  us  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  His  will,  Eph.  1.  .  .  . 
But  if  God  chose  us  because  He  loved  us  in  His  Son  Christ  Jesus, 
since  in  Him  alone  we  are  acceptable  to  God,  Eph.  1,  and  if  we 
■did  not  yet  exist  as  then  and  consequently  could  have  had  no 
faith,  it  must  follow  that  God  looked  upon  future  faith,  and  thus 
chose  unto  life  us  who  would  in  the  future  believe  in  Christ.  7) 
When  God  elected  us.  He  inscribed  us  in  the  Book  of  Life  which 
is  Christ  (Phil.  4;  Rev.  3).  But  Christ  can  benefit  no  one  who 
•does  not  believe  in  Him.  Therefore  God  inscribed  no  one  in  the 
Book  of  Life  except  those  only  of  whom  He  saw  that  they  would 
believe  in  Christ.     Finally,  8)  it  is  indeed  certain  that  God  would 


408  Intuitu  Fidei. 

have  all  men  to  be  saved  prima  voluntate  (according  to  His  first 
or  antecedent  will),  if  only  they  would  all  believe.  But  since  the 
greater  part  will  not  believe  and  only  the  smallest  number  be- 
lieves, God  wills  voluntate  secunda  (according  to  His  second  or 
subsequent  will)  that  most  of  them  be  damned,  and  that  the 
smallest  number,  namely  those  alone  who  believe,  be  saved.  And 
the  unbelieving  are  already  condemned,  because  they  do  not  be- 
lieve in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  John  3.  But 
did  not  God  foreknow  which  would  remain  in  their  damnable  un- 
belief? Yea,  He  did  indeed  foreknow  without  a  doubt.  .  .  . 
Therefore,  He  elected  only  those  of  whom  He  knew  that  they 
would  believe  in  Christ  and  remain  steadfast  in  faith  unto  their 
end." 


WOLFGANG  FRANZ. 

Wolfgang  Franz*  writes:  "The  Scriptures  say  in  a  human 
w'ay  of  God  that  He  has  a  book  and  that  He  enters  on  it  the  faith 
or  the  unbelief  of  every  man  regarding  the  revealed  Word  and 
means  of  salvation,  as  also  other  acts.  Ps.  139,  16:  Tn  Thy 
book  all  my  members  were  written,  which  in  continuance  were 
fashioned,  when  as  yet  there  was  none  of  them.'  Dan.  7,  10: 
'The  judgment  was  set,  and  the  books  were  opened.'  This  is 
not  said  to  signify  that  God  really  keeps  such  books,  but  because 
He  knows  all  believers  by  virtue  of  His  perfect  foreknowledge, 
foresees  and  loves  and  predestinates  them  unto  eternal  honor  ac- 
cording to  the  faith  they  show  His  Word,  something  like  men 
record  those  whom  they  owe  returns  for  faithfulness  shown,  that 
they  may  not  forget.  Those,  therefore,  of  whom  God  foresaw 
that  they  would  believe  and  obey  Him  according  to  His  will,, 
whom  for  this  reason  He  determined  to  glorify  eternally,  are 
said  to  be  recorded  in  heaven  or  inscribed  in  the  Book  of  Life."^ 
(Tract,  de  Interpret.  S.  S.,  p.  407.) 

"They  are  called  the  elect  (Matt.  20  and  22)  who  accept  the 
call  and  hold  steadfastly  to  it  and  do  not  leap  back,  and  of  whom 


*  Born  1564  at  Plauen;  studied  at  Frankfort  on  the  Oder  under  Christ. 
Corner,  one  of  the  six  authors  of  the  F.  C,  and  at  Wittenberg.  He  died 
as  professor  of  theology  at  Wittenberg  in  1628.  —  The  aged  Corner  did 
not  die  till  1594,  and  was  therefore  not  in  ignorance  concerning  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  F.  C.  maintained  by  Hunnius  and  Leyser  in  opposition  to 
Huber. 


Balthasar  Meyiczer.  409 

God  from  the  beginning  foresaw  that  they  would  be  such,  and 
whom  He  predestinated  as  such  foreseen  persons  unto  everlast- 
ing salvation."     (Ibid.,  p.  407.) 


BALTHASAR  MENTZER. 

Balthasar  Mentzer,  the  elder,*  wrote  in  German  and  in  Latin 
one  work  after  another  against  the  Hessian  and  other  German 
Calvinists,  Stein,  Crocius,  Eglinus,  Alartinius,  and  others.  The 
Reformed  of  Hessia  and  of  Bremen  had  given  the  Lutherans 
their  choice  between  Christ  and  faith,  like  Missouri,  so  that  the 
final  decree  to  save  only  certain  persons  was  to  rest  on  Christ 
indeed  and  His  merit,  but  without  regard  to  faith  which  appre- 
hends Christ's  merit.  Faith  and  the  appropriation  of  Christ's 
merit  was  to  flow  from  election  as  a  means  for  the  end;  so  that 
the  order  would  be:  1)  Christ  and  His  merit;  2)  the  decree  to 
save  certain  persons  only  through  Christ  (election  unto  salvation) ; 
3)  the  decree,  following  from  and  based  on  this,  to  bring  these 
same  persons  most  certainly  and  infallibly  unto  faith  and  to  pre- 
serve them  therein  (election  unto  steadfast  faith).  We,  of  course, 
can  bring  only  a  few  of  the  main  passages,  which  show  clearly 
how  foreign  to  the  most  prominent  theologians  who  had  grown 
up  in  the  F.  C.  Church  was  the  thought,  that  God  had  not  elected 
believers  as  such,  but  simply  sinners  from  among  sinners,  wicked 
from  among  the  wicked,  godless  persons  from  among  the  god- 
less, enemies  from  among  enemies,  unconverted  people  from 
among  the  unconverted,  men  without  faith  from  among  men 
without  faith ;  and  that  He  elected  and  firmly  predestinated  these 

*  Born  1565;  studied  at  Marburg;  was  there  made  Magister  and  Lec- 
tor in  1584;  pastor  at  Kirtorf  in  1589;  on  John  Winckelmann's  earnest 
admonition  professor  of  theology  at  Marburg  in  1595.  Died  1627.  After 
the  writings  of  men  like  Hunnius,  Leyser,  Gerlach,  Arcularius,  and  others, 
who  as  subscribers  to  the  F.  C.  have  authentically  explained  the  sense  of 
the  11th  article,  we  must  consider  the  writings  of  men  like  Runge,  Balduin, 
Mentzer  as  corroborating  witnesses.  For  many  of  the  first  subscribers 
were  still  living,  who  by  their  general  silence  without  exception  testify  that 
the  doctrine,  defended  most  unanimously  and  zealously  by  all  Lutheran 
theologians  at  that  time,  that  election  uato  salvation  pertains  to  foreseen 
believers  as  such,  is  the  true  doctrine  of  the  F.  C.  and  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  that  the  contrary  Calvinistic  and  Missourian  doctrine,  rejected 
by  the  Confession,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  "mere"  review  which  elects 
"certain  persons"  regardlessly  unto  salvation  and  unto  all  means. 


410  Intuitu  Fidei. 

as  such  sinners,  wicked,  godless  persons,  enemies,  unconverted 
people,  and  men  without  faith,  1)  unto  salvation  itself,  unto  the 
certain  attainment  of  everlasting  salvation,  and  therefore  2)  unto 
infallible  conversion  and  perseverence;  and  all  this  without  in 
any  way  regarding  any  of  their  conduct  toward  His  means  of 
grace  or  His  order  of  grace. 

Mentzer  writes:  "The  Calvinist  claims  as  we  do  with  Paul 
that  we  are  elected  according  to  the  eternal  purpose,  counsel, 
and  good  pleasure  of  God,  but  he  deviates  from  Paul  and  from 
lis  in  inventing  the  fatalistic  and  unconditional  decree:  Some 
certain  persons,  in  particular  this,  that,  and  the  other  shall  be 
the  elect,  by  far  the  greater  number,  however,  namely  this,  that, 
and  the  other,  and  these  and  those  and  the  others  shall  be  the 
reprobate.  Why?  Because  it  seemed  good  to  Him,  it  so  pleased 
the  divine  will.  Here  is  deep  silence  as  concerns  the  order  of 
the  means  of  salvation.  And  the  Calvinist  himself  calls  this  a 
secret  decree,  from  which  I  conclude  firmly  that  this  decree  or 
good  pleasure  is  not  one  and  the  same  with  that  concerning  which 
Paul  so  often  testifies  that  it  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  Gospel." 
(Opp.  2,  768.) 

"Since  in  this  (Calvinistic)  decree  only  men  themselves  are 
regarded  absolutely  and  unconditionally  —  this,  that,  the  other, 
these,  those —  without  any  regard  to  the  means  of  salvation, 
whether  they  believe  or  not,  —  therefore  this  doctrine  must  ap- 
pear suspicious  to  all  godly  people,  for  it  is  not  only  not  found 
in  the  Gospel,  but  is  also  entirely  separated  from  the  Gospel  and 
from  faith.  Neither  will  this  sophistry  help  the  matter,  when 
they  claim  that  the  Gospel  and  faith  are  indeed  taken  into  con- 
sideration, since  without  them  we  could  not  be  saved.  For  this 
is  meant  (of  the  Gospel  and  of  faith)  only  subsequently  and  not 
antecedently,  i.  e.  the  Gospel  and  faith  do  not  enter  the  circle 
of  election  itself,  in  which  God  electing  and  man  elected  stand; 
in  this  circle  there  are  no  means,  for  these  are  added  afterwards." 
<Opp.  963.) 

"Crocius  denies  that  foreseen  faith  in  Christ  has  its  place 
in  election.  From  this  it  follows  that  election  is  absolute  and 
depends  on  the  mere  and  unconditional  will  of  God,  because  it 
so  pleased  Him:  For  as  the  good  pleasure  of  God  is  constituted, 
according  to  which  we  are  elected,  so  also  is  election  itself  con- 
stituted. But  this  good  pleasure  of  God,  according  to  which 
we  are  elected,  is  absolute  and  unconditional  in  the  eyes  of  all  Cal- 


Balthasar  Mentzer.  411 

vinists:  because  it  so  pleased  Him.  In  the  eyes  of  Lutherans, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  ordered:  He  who  shall  believe  and  shall 
be  baptized,  shall  be  saved.  Therefore,  in  the  eyes  of  Calvinists 
election  is  unconditional:  This  one,  that,  the  other  shall  be 
■elected,  because  it  so  pleased  God.  In  the  eyes  of  Lutherans, 
however,  election  is  ordered  in  Christ:  This  one,  that,  the  other 
shall  be  elected,  because  he  believes  and  is  baptized,  namely 
according  to  the  eternal  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father." 
<Opp.  1,  535.) 

"Which  did  God  elect?  Crosius  is  silent  on  this  point. 
Those  of  Dort  say:  'certain  men'  or  'certain  persons'  without 
any  further  description.  We  also  say  that  certain  men  or  per- 
sons have  been  elected,  but  we  add:  who  believe  in  Christ." 
(Opp.  1,  755.) 

"Stein  (the  Cassel  Calvinist)  concludes:  'God  has  found  no 
cause  in  us  for  the  sake  of  which  He  might  have  selected  or 
chosen  us  in  preference  to  others  unto  eternal  life,  the  cause 
of  such  election  is  solely  and  alone  God's  gracious  will;  hence 
this  will  of  God  can  be  termed  absolute.'  —  I  answer:  That  no 
cause  was  found  in  us,  for  the  sake  of  which  we  might  have  been 
elected,  is  true,  for  although  in  the  beginning  we  were  created 
in  Adam  for  eternal  life,  the  deplorable  fall  resulted,  which  caused 
that  we  should  die  the  eternal  death  on  account  of  our  sin, 
according  to  the  serious  threat  of  God,  Gen.  2,  17:  In  the  day 
that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die.  Consequently,  if 
God  had  dealt  with  us  according  to  His  strict  justice,  we  would 
all  have  been  damned  on  account  of  our  sins.  But  God  looked 
upon  our  misery  with  His  mercy  and  formed  a  gracious  decree, 
how  we  might  be  saved,  concerning  which  Christ  testifies,  John  3, 
16:  'God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten 
Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  everlasting  life.'  God's  righteousness  and  truth  stood 
against  us  who  had  ofifended  the  divine  Majesty  by  sin.  His 
grace  and  mercy,  however,  had  pity  on  us  poor  creatures  in  our 
misery  and  desired  to  help  us.  Here  now  the  unsearchable  grace, 
wisdom,  and  mercy  of  God  shine  forth  in  the  divine  decree, 
will,  and  good  pleasure,  that  the  blessed  Son  of  God  is  to  be 
given  to  us  poor  miserable  men,  and  that  He  Himself  is  to  become 
man  and  pay  for  our  sins,  satisfy  the  righteousness  of  God  and 
purchase  salvation  for  us;  and  even  more,  that  all  His  benefits 
obtained  for  us  are  to  be  proclaimed,  olTered,  and  presented  to 


412  ■  Intuitu  Fidei. 

us  by  the  Gospel ;  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  work  efficaciously 
in  us  through  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  the  distribution 
of  the  Sacraments,  enkindle,  strengthen  and  preserve  faith  in 
us,  that  we  may  apprehend  and  possess  Christ  and  in  Him  God's 
grace,  forgiveness  of  sins,  righteousness  and  salvation;  and  that 
then  we  show  and  testify  by  new  obedience  our  gratitude  toward 
God  in  all  manner  of  good  works  of  love  toward  God  and  toward 
our  neighbor;  and  that  in  all  tribulations  also  He  would  grant 
us  consolation  and  help,  protect  us  against  our  enemies,  and 
finally  lead  us  from  this  vale  of  tears  into  heavenly  joy  and  sal- 
vation. This  entire  order  of  the  means  of  our  salvation  is  in- 
cluded in  the  purpose,  decree,  will,  and  good  pleasure  of  God, 
according  to  which  we  are  elected  unto  everlasting  salvation. 
And  therefore  this  purpose  is  the  rule  and  norm  according  to 
which  the  entire  doctrine  of  eternal  predestination  must  govern 
itself."*     (Examination,   etc.,  p.   171.) 

"In  Christ  He  has  chosen  and  ordained  unto  eternal  life — ■ 
namely  (1)  in  so  far  as  Christ  was  appointed  by  eternal  love  from 
eternity  as  our  Mediator  and  Redeemer,  and  (2)  was  sent  in  the 
fulness  of  time,  and  (3)  has  been  firmly  apprehended  by  true 
faith,  which  is  enkindled  by  hearing  the  Gospel  through  the 
illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Heb.  13,  8."     (Opp.  2,  931.) 

"  'Chosen  in  Christ'  can  be  predicated  of  no  one  who  does 
not  belong  to  Him,  who  does  not  as  a  member  of  His  body 
acknowledge  Him  as  his  head,  who  is  not  implanted  in  Him 
or  stands  in  a  certain  relation  to  Him  or  dependence  upon  Him. 
When  now  we  turn  to  the  Scriptures  for  advice,  they  direct  us 
to  faith  through  which  we  are  united  with  Christ  and  implanted 
in  Him,  and  through  which  He  dwells  in  our  hearts.  John  1, 
12;  Gal.  3,  26;  Eph.  3,  17;  Phil.  3,  13.  14.  Hence,  as  Christ 
was  foreknown  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  as  the  Medi- 


*  According  to  Mentzer  and  all  the  F.  C.  theologians  the  revealed 
counsel  of  God  unto  the  salvation  of  all  men  and  the  counsel  of  predes- 
tination are  only  one  and  the  same  counsel,  since  there  is  only  one  "coun- 
sel of  God"  for  the  saving  of  men;  accordingly  predestination  considered 
as  a  counsel  is  identical  with  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation,  but  con- 
sidered as  an  act  or  decree  respecting  the  bestowal  of  salvation  upon  cer- 
tain persons  according  to  the  rule  and  norm  of  the  universal  counsel. 
Missouri  finds  that  this  is  a  fundamental  error,  since  predestination 
is  "an  altogether  different  thing";  a  second  entirely  different  "counsel  of 
God"  for  the  bestowal  of  salvation  upon  the  few  elect  —  this  is  the  "coun- 
sel of  predestination." 


Balthasar  Mentzer.  413 

ator  and  Redeemer  of  the  human  race,  1  Peter  1,  18-20,  so 
also  those  who  were  foreknown  from  eternity  as  being  attached 
by  faith  to  Christ,  their  Head,  were  chosen  in  Christ  as  their 
Mediator  and  Redeemer  unto  eternal  life."     (P.  933.) 

"The  expression:  'God  hath  chosen  us  in  Christ,'  includes 
1)  Christ  Himself  as  the  Mediator,  in  whom  the  grace  of  God 
who  elects  so  to  say  resides;  2)  the  Gospel  as  the  message  con- 
cerning Christ  and  the  grace  of  God  in  Him;  3)  faith  as  the 
spiritual  hand,  which  embraces  and  appropriates  the  Redeemer 
Christ  shown,  offered,  and  bestowed  in  the  Gospel,  and  in  Him 
also  the  grace  of  God  who  elects.  For  this  reason  election  unto 
eternal  life  can  not  be  described  in  full  or  considered  in  a  godly 
manner  without  the  grace  of  God,  or  without  Christ,  or  without 
faith.  According  to  the  analogy  of  faith,  therefore,  an  analysis 
and  explanation  nmst  be  made  as  follows:  1)  when  it  is  said 
that  we  are  elected  through  the  grace  of  God,  we  must  under- 
stand the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  embraced  by  faith;  2)  when 
it  is  said  that  we  are  elected  in  Christ,  the  Mediator  and  Re- 
deemer Christ  must  be  understood,  in  whom  the  grace  of  God 
has  been,  as  it  were,  deposited,  and  who  is  embraced  by  true 
faith;  and  3)  when  it  is  said  that  we  are  elected  'in  sanctification 
of  the  Spirit  and  in  belief  of  the  truth,'  we  must  understand  the 
faith  enkindled  by  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  Gospel,  in  so  far 
as  this  faith  embraces  Christ  in  the  evangelical  promise  and  in 
Christ  the  grace  of  God  who  elects  unto  eternal  life.  And  this 
in  altogether  the  same  manner  as  in  justification,  because  of  the 
most  perfect  similiarity  between  the  eternal  divine  purpose  and 
the  execution  of  this  purpose  in  time.  We  are  justified  through 
the  grace  of  God,  not  through  an  absolute  grace,  but  through 
the  grace  in  Christ  embraced  by  faith.  We  are  justified  in  Christ 
as  the  Mediator  and  Redeemer,  through  grace  embraced  by  faith 
in  Him.  We  are  justified  through  faith  enkindled  in  us  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  through  the  Gospel,  which  faith  embraces  and  appro- 
priates the  Redeemer  Christ  and  in  Him  the  grace  of  God  who 
justifies  us."     (P.  934.) 

"Since  the  whole  human  race  fell  in  Adam  and  was  driven 
from  Paradise,  sin  made  no  distinction  among  men,  but  as  all 
were  sinners  alike  so  all  alike  were  doomed  to  condemnation. 
And  yet  some  from  among  these  sinners  are  elected  unto  life, 
others  are  rejected  that  they  shall  not  obtain  eternal  life,  but 
shall  be  condemned.     Whence  this  difference?     From  the  decla- 


414  Intuitu  Fidei. 

ration  of  Crocius"  (that  the  decree  and  its  execution  must  har- 
monize) "the  answer  must  of  necessity  follow,  this  difference  is 
due  to  faith  and  unbelief.  Those  are  elected  who  would  believe 
in  Christ  through  the  Gospel;  those  are  rejected  who  would  not 
believe.  Nor  can  any  other  difiference  be  pointed  out,  since, 
as  has  been  said,  all  are  sinners  and  therefore  worthy  of  con- 
demnation. And  there  was  no  other  means  for  escaping  from 
this  condemnation  except  Christ  who  must  be  embraced  by  true 
faith  in  the  Gospel.  Hence  it  is  said  that  we  are  elected  in 
Christ  and  through  Christ,  Eph.  1,  4.  5.  And  therefore  these 
two  propositions  correspond  to  each  other:  Man  is  justified  only 
through  faith  in  Christ,  hence  he  is  also  elected  only  through 
faith  in  Christ.  And:  He  is  rejected  only  through  unbelief, 
whereby  Christ  was  rejected."     (P.  947.) 

"When  God  elects  some  few  men  from  among  the  whole 
human  race,  it  must  be  explained  how  this  agrees  with  His  right- 
eousness and  truth.*  Crocius  replies,  this  is  mediated  by  the 
satisfaction  which  Christ  rendered.  But  this  satisfaction  is  uni- 
versal. And  Crocius  himself  admits  that  the  proposition  is 
untenable:  All  those  for  whom  Christ  rendered  satisfaction  are 
the  elect.  This  then  is  a  mere  subterfuge,  and  the  whole  Crocian 
argumentation  ends  in  a  defense  of  Calvin's  old  doctrine,  merely 
using  a  milder  phraseology. f  The  sum  of  it  is  this:  God  has 
from  eternity  chosen  unto  eternal  life  some  certain  men,  whom 
He  has  loved  from  eternity  in  a  special  manner.  Why?  Be- 
cause it  so  pleased  Him.  For  these  therefore  He  ordained  the 
Savior  Christ,  these  He  calls  in  an  effectual  manner,  grants  them 
faith  and  saves  them.  What  becomes  of  the  rest?  Did  He  not 
love  them  at  all?  He  did  not  love  them  'in  a  special  manner,' 
so  that  He  wanted  to  save  them;  yet  He  loved  them  in  a  general 
way,  and  Christ  died  also  for  them,  but  He  did  not  obtain  for 
them  as  for  the  elect  the  grace  of  conversion  in  an  effectual  man- 


*  Well,  well,  Mentzer!  "It  must  be  explained"  ?  !  Can  you  "ration- 
alize" like  this,  as  Missouri  terms  it?  What  an  exceeding  pity  that  the 
St.  Louis  reformers  are  300  years  too  late  with  their  broom  for  heretics, 
that  they  might  have  "swept  out  of  the  Lutheran  Church  this  synergism, 
Pelagianism,  and  rationalism!"  Alas,  that  they  should  have  arrived  post 
festum ! 

t  Now  please  step  aside,  gentlemen,  from  Missouri,  otherwise  some 
of  the  blows  Mentzer  deals  out  to  Crocius  might  fall  upon  your  heads, 
since  you  too  attempt  to  reform  our  Lutheran  doctrine  away  from  Witten- 
berg in  the  direction  of  Geneva  —  merely  using  a  milder  phraseology! 


Balthasar  Mentzer.  415 

iier,  nor  in  this  same  maniier  saving  faith  and  eternal  life.  And 
He  indeed  calls  them  by  the  Gospel  in  a  general  way.  but  not 
in  an  effectual  manner  so  that  they  will  believe  in  Christ  and  be 
saved,  but  merely  so  that  they  will  be  without  excuse  and  sufifer 
greater  punishment."     (P.  967.*) 

"Since  the  Scriptures  affirm  explicitly  in  so  many  passages 
that  Christ  died  for  the  whole  world,  for  all  men,  even  for  the 
wicked  and  for  those  who  perish,  Stein  has  learned  a  special 
trick  for  deceiving  the  simple  and  imposing  on  them  by  the  us(? 
of  good  words.  He  declares  that  both  is  true:  Christ  has  died 
in  general  for  all  men,  but  in  a  special  way  only  for  the  elect.  This 
he  adorns  by  declaring  that  the  Scriptures  state,  Christ  has  died 
for  all,  and  yet  they  say  He  has  given  His  life  for  the  redemption 
of  many,  that  is,  according  to  his  interpretation,  only  for  the 
elect;  and  this,  he  tells  us,  must  be  understood  of  the  efficacious 
application  and  appropriation,  that  Christ  bestows  His  suffer- 
ing efficaciously  upon  the  elect  and  for  this  purpose  enkindles 
faith  in  them.f     But  if  this  were  true,  it  would  follow  that  Christ 

*  This  sketch  of  the  doctrine  of  Crocius  and  other  German  Reformed 
by  Mentzer,  shows  that  then  already  the  doctrine  of  two  dissimilar  wills 
of  grace  in  God  was  not  unknown  to  our  Lutheran  theologians.  They 
rejected  and  contended  against  this  inequality  in  the  eternal  will  of  love 
and  counsel  of  grace  on  God's  part  as  taught  by  their  Reformed  opponents 
in  Germany.  Missouri  to-day  dishes  up  this  same  fundamental  idea  con- 
cerning a  secret  inequality  in  the  gracious  will  of  God,  declaring  it  to  be 
the  real  quintessence  of  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  Con- 
fession on  "election."  "On  the  one  hand,"  we  are  told,  God  would  Ffave 
all  men  to  be  saved;  but  —  "on  the  other  hand",  as  the  "hidden  God",  He 
upholds  "His  right  to  have  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy"  —  and 
this  among  equals,  who  still  lie  in  the  universal  depravity,  without  there 
being  any  difference  on  the  part  of  men  to  bring  about  this  limitation  of 
the  gracious  will  of  God,  without  God's  dealing  at  all  according  to  His 
revealed  order  of  grace  in  actually  bestowing  His  mercy.  This  is  simply 
teaching  that  there  are  two  wills  of  grace  in  God.  The  one  indeed  is  uni- 
versal, making  the  final  outcome,  however,  (conversion  and  the  recep- 
tion of  salvation)  depend  on  man's  conduct.  The  other,  on  the  other 
hand,  has  no  regard  whatever  to  man's  condtict,  but  is  at  once  a  fixed  de- 
cree of  the  will  of  grace  (hence  "guaranteeing"  conversion,  perseverence, 
salvation),  and  yet  in  its  nature  from  the  very  start  a  particular  will,  per- 
taining only  to  a  few! 

t  It  appears  that  the  Calvinist  Stein  sought  to  adorn  the  duplicity  of 
the  will  of  salvation  which  he  taught  by  passages  of  Scripture,  and  this 
very  much  as  Missouri  does  to-day  in  its  teachings  in  regard  to  the  uni- 
versal and  the  particular  will  of  mercy,  the  latter  of  which  coincides  with 
the  gracious  will  of  election.  • 


416  IntuiUi  Fidei. 

indeed  died  for  all,  but  that  He  did  not  obtain  equal  benefits  for 
all,  earning  faith  and  salvation  only  for  the  elect  and  not  for  the 
rest.  And  this  would  amount  in  the  end  to  the  declaration,  that 
Christ  indeed  died  for  all,  but  not  in  the  sense  that  all  should 
believe  and  be  saved,  this  being  reserved  only  for  the  elect.  And 
it  would  follow  furthermore  that,  when  Christ  is  proclaimed  to 
us  in  the  Gospel  and  offered  to  us  with  all  His  benefits,  the  elect 
must  receive  something  special  which  is  presented  and  offered 
to  them  alone  and  not  to  the  rest;  and  this  in  itself  is  absurd  and 
contrary  to  the  Gospel.  For  the  very  grace  of  God  and  the  very 
merit  of  Christ,  and  the  very  righteousness  and  salvation  which 
believers  embrace  and  appropriate  in  the  Gospel  is  rejected  and 
cast  away  by  unbelievers,  according  to  the  well-known  passage, 
Acts  13,  46."*     (Preface  to  the  Examen.) 

"As  God  does  not  receive  us  as  His  children  except  through 
faith  in  Christ,  who  has  reconciled  us  poor  sinners  to  God,  so  also 
God  did  not  elect  us  unto  eternal  life  except  through  faith  in 
Christ,  who  has  redeemed  us  from  death  and  purchased  for  us 
life.  For  God  does  not  ordain  a  sinful  man  unto  eternal  life, 
on  the  contrary  He  condemns  him  in  His  first  judgment.  There- 
fore, that  a  sinner  may  be  elected  unto  eternal  life,  satisfaction 
must  be  rendered  for  his  sin,  and  that  this  satisfaction  may  benefit 
the  sinner,  it  must  be  applied  to  him,  and  this  can  be  done  only 
through  faith.  Hence  a  sinner  is  indeed  chosen  unto  life,  yet 
not  prior  to  the  satisfaction  (I  speak  of  the  order  in  the  divine 
foreknowledge,  and  of  the  eternal  counsel  of  grace),  but  through 
the  mediation  of  this  satisfaction,  and  inasmuch  as  this  satisfac- 


*  Mentzer  here  figures  out  for  Stein  what  all  would  "follow  from" 
his  double  definition  of  redemption,  and  how  "absurd  and  contrary  to  the 
Gospel"  this  would  be.  Missouri,  of  course,  objects  to  such  conclusions 
being  drawn  from  its  doctrine,  yet  the  very  same  things  would  follow 
from  the  Missourian  doctrine  concerning  a  double  or  twofold  will  of  divine 
mercy.  And  when  it  comes  to  the  point,  Missouri  would  logically  be  com- 
pelled to  teach  in  the  same  way  that  already  in  Christ's  merit  there  is  some- 
thing particular,  "something  special"  as  Mentzer  calls  it,  for  the  elect. 
For  this  that  only  the  elect,  while  still  lying  like  the  rest  as  sinners  with- 
out faith  "in  the  general  depravity",  have  salvation  "guaranteed"  to  them 
and  assured  and  promised  to  them  by  predestination,  in  preference  to  all 
the  rest,  without  regard  to  their  unbelieving  condition,  this  has  surely  been 
obtained  and  earned  for  them  by  Christ.  This  "guarantee"  blessing  flows 
for  them  from  Christ's  merit,  does  it  not?  But  it  is  impossible  that  this 
"guarantee"  of  salvation  should  have  been  obtained  for  all.  That  must 
be  "something  special"  in  Christ's  merit  for  the  elect. 


Balthasar  Mentzer.  417 

tion  was  applied  to  the  sinner  through  faith.  For  when  the  sat- 
isfaction of  Christ  is  not  appropriated  by  the  sinner,  God  con- 
demns the  sinner  in  His  just  judgment,  beholding  and  judgingf 
in  him  his  sin."  (Opp.  1,  1019.)  "Therefore,  as  is  the  reception 
unto  adoption  so  also  is  the  election.  But  now  the  adoption 
takes  place  through  faith  and  in  no  other  way.  Therefore  the 
same  is  true  of  election.*" 

"He  who  declares  that  God  accepts  a  sinner  without  the  in- 
tervention of  Christ's  satisfaction  flatters  the  Socinians  and  at- 
tacks the  righteousness  and  truthfulness  of  God.  He,  however, 
who  declares  that  men  are  elected  through  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ  and  for  the  sake  of  this  satisfaction,  without  at  the  same 
time  mentioning  its  appropriation,  introduces  a  universal  election, 
just  as  the  satisfaction  is  universal,  having  been  rendered  for  all 
men  and  for  every  single  man  in  the  whole  world."  (Opp.  1, 
1019.t) 

"Crocius  agrees  with  us  that  God  has  elected  us  in  the  Re- 
deemer Christ.  God  therefore  looks  upon  sinful  man  in  election, 
not  as  he  still  lies  worthy  of  condemnation  in  his  sins,  but  as  he 
is  redeemed  from  his  sins  through  Christ  and  implanted  in  Christ 
as  a  member  of  His  body;  and  this  appropriation  cannot  take 
place  except  through  faith.  But  Crocius  denies  that  the  appro- 
prieition  through  faith  has  its  place  in  the  act  of  election.  Yet 
we  cannot  be  in  Christ  without  faith,  and  Christ  is  of  no  benefit 

*  Missouri,  however,  deals  in  sophistry  on  this  point,  clearly  contra- 
dicting the  Scriptures,  John  1,  12;  Gal.  3,  27;  etc.  It  argues:  We  are 
elected  "unto  the  adoption",  which  is  imparted  through  faith  to  certain 
definite  persons;  consequently  these  persons  were  elected  "unto  faith." 
If  Missouri  were  honest,  it  would  conclude  furthermore:  We  are  elected 
unto  salvation,  which  is  obtained  only  by  certain  persons  through  Christ 
and  His  redemption;  consequently  these  persons  alone  are  elected  "unto 
Christ  and  unto  His  redemption."  He  who  is  elected  unto  all  the  means 
of  salvation  must  be  elected  above  all  unto  the  redemption  through  Christ, 
if  he  is  elected  1)  unto  salvation,  and  then  2)  unto  the  means  of  salvation. 

t  Missouri,  as  we  know,  declares:  The  causes  of  election  are  only 
these  two:  God's  mercy  and  Christ's  merit.  Both  of  these  causes,  how- 
ever, are  in  themselves  universal,  and  yet  election  pertains  only  to  certam 
persons.  How  does  this  come?  If  the  two  exclusive  causes  are  in  them- 
selves universal,  then  their  result  and  effect  should  likewise  be  universal, 
unless  either  the  consideration  of  the  appropriation  by  faith  or  a  secret 
"mere  good  pleasure"  has  caused  a  limitation.  Here  now  Missouri  wavers 
and  quavers  most  pitifully.  Now  it  tells  us  that  God  did  seek  and  inquire 
after  faith  in  the  case  of  the  non-elect,  and  again  it  declares  that  God  has 
dealt  according  to  His  sovereign  right  and  will  (libitum). 


418  Intuitu  Fidei. 

to  us,  if  He  is  not  apprehended  by  faith.  Therefore,  if  the  appro- 
priation by  faith  falls  away,  there  can  be  no  reason,  why  some 
are  chosen  in  Christ,  the  Redeemer  of  the  whole  world,  and  others 
are  not  chosen.*  For  sinners  as  sinners  are  not  in  Christ,  but 
are  separated  from  Him.  But  in  so  far  as  a  sinner  truly  believes 
he  is  in  Christ  as  a  member  of  His  body.  And  this  is  what  I  have 
often  said:  Crocius  cannot  explain  thoroughly  what  it  means 
to  be  elected  in  Christ."     (3,  1021.) 

"Election  is  either  absolute  or  qualified  and  limited  by  faith 
in  Christ.  If  you  reply,  it  is  limited  'in  Christ,'  this  is  no  limita- 
tion unless  faith  is  added,  which  divides  the  whole  human  race 
into  two  classes:  believers  and  non-believers,  elect  and  non-elect. 
Put  aside  faith,  and  there  will  be  no  separation  of  persons  in 
Christ,  for  Christ  has  rendered  satisfaction  for  all  and  for  every 
single  man,  and  yet  they  are  not  all  the  elect,  but  only  those  who 
believe."     (1,  1023.) 

"It  dare  not  be  denied  that  God  selected  some  from  among 
the  lost  multitude  of  the  human  race  redeemed  by  Christ.  Which 
did  He  select?  Crocius  says:  'Those  beloved  in  pure  mercy 
in  Christ.'  But  just  before  this  he  declared  that  this  decree  is 
based  on  the  universal  kindness  and  love  of  God,  John  3,  16. 
From  this,  however,  no  cause  of  particularity  can  be  _proven,  be- 
cause God  loved  all,  gave  His  Son  for  all,  and  Christ  redeemed 
all.  Here  then  there  is  no  trace  of  a  separation  or  selection,  for 
all  men  without  exception,  who  are  created  and  fallen,  are  also 
redeemed.  And  Christ  rendered  satisfaction  for  all  in  the  same 
way,  not  more  for  some,  and  less  for  others;  He  obtained  for  all 
alike  forgiveness  of  sins,  righteousness,  and  eternal  life.  As  it 
was  in  paradise  where  the  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  went  out 


*  Note  well:  Salvation  is  obtained  perfectly  for  all  sinners  in  Christ. 
In  the  "election  unto  salvation"  God  determines  who  among  these  sin- 
ners (for  all  of  whom  Christ  obtained  salvation  perfectly  and  in  the  same 
way)  are  now  actually  tc  receive  this  salvation;  and  this  means:  who 
alone  is  to  have  it,  i.  e.  who  is  to  have  it  and  who  is  not  to  have  it,  for 
election  signifies  that  only  a  certain  part  is  taken  from  the  whole  multitude. 
Why  are  so  many  excluded  from  the  salvation  which  is  obtained  for  them? 
Either  because  of  their  unbelief,  and  then  God  had  regard  to  faith  and 
inquired  after  it  at  least  in  the  case  of  these;  or  God  paid  no  attention  to 
faith  in  the  case  of  any  one,  when  He  elected  unto  salvation,  also  not  in 
the  case  of  the  non-elect,  and  then  these  were  excluded  from  the  ''election 
unto  faith"  and  from  the  salvation  obtained  for  them  by  the  use  God 
made  of  His  "sovereign  right." 


Balthasar  Mentzer.  419 

to  the  whole  human  race.  It  detracts  from  the  honor  of  God  and 
Christ  to  assert  that  God  does  not  want  to  bestow  faith  upon  the 
greater  part  of  men  who  have  been  redeemed  through  Christ, 
but  only  upon  some,  those  who  are  absolutely  the  elect.*  This 
absolute  love  toward  some  is  in  no  way  consistent  with  the  uni- 
versal redemption  which  took  place  according  to  God's  will.  Did 
Christ  then  obtain  the  gift  of  faith  for  all  or  only  for  some?  If 
for  all,  then  the  particularity  of  this  decree,  according  to  which 
faith  is  to  be  given  only  to  a  few,  falls  to  pieces.  But  if  Christ 
has  obtained  the  gift  of  faith  only  for  some,  then  a  difference  and 
an  inequality  would  have  to  be  admitted  in  Christ's  merit  itself, 
that  is  that  He  has  obtained  more  for  some  and  less  for  others. 
And  if  this  is  asserted,  then  the  same  inequality  would  have  to 
exist  also  in  the  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of  God,  since  Christ's 
work  corresponds  to  the  will  of  the  Father."     (1,  lOSl.f) 

"Between  Christ  and  ourselves  there  must  be  a  connecting 
link  and  an  application,  and  this  cannot  be  without  faith.  There 
is  indeed  a  fellowship  of  nature  J)etween  ourselves  and  Christ, 
wherefore  Christ  is  the  Redeemer  of  men,  not  of  angels,  Heb.  2, 
16.  But  from  this  we  can  conclude  neither  the  election  nor  the 
salvation  of  all  men,  because  a  special  application  is  required  be- 
sides this,  namely  that  I  may  be  able  to  say  with  the  apostle:  I 
live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God  who  loved  me  and  gave  Him- 
self for  me.  Thus  election  took  place  in  Christ,  through  Christ, 
and  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  that  is  that  all  who  believe  in  Him 

*  This,  to  be  sure,  Missouri  does  not  say,  declaring  rather  that  God 
"on  the  one  side"  would  give  faith  to  all  men,  if  they  would  not  wilfully 
resist.  But  where  now  at  bottom,  or  if  we  "go  deeper",  is  the  cause  that 
only  a  few  are  really  and  actually  delivered  from  their  wilful  resistance? 
Here  Missouri  fetches  up  the  "other  side"  of  God's  will  of  mercy,  accord- 
ing to  which  He  "reserves  for  Himself  the  sovereign  right  to  have  mercy 
on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  and  to  harden  whom  He  will  harden"  —  not 
according  to  the  different  conduct  of  the  called,  but  with  their  conduct 
identical,  hence  according  to  a  secret  unequal  will  and  conduct  of  God  — 
on  the  one  hand  a  will  of  mercy,  on  the  other  a  will  of  hardening. 

t  In  quite  the  same  way  this  applies  to  Missouri.  Missouri  admits 
that  Christ  "made  election  possible."  Whose  election  did  Christ  make 
possible?  That  of  all,  or  that  only  of  some?  For  whom  is  the  possibility 
of  election  in  Christ's  merit?  For  all,  or  only  for  some?  If  for  all  and  in 
the  same  way,  then  election  is  conditional  and  ordered  for  all.  If  only 
for  some  and  in  an  unequal  way,  then  Christ  has  obtained  the  blessing 
which  decides  everything,  only  for  some!  ! 


420  hituitu  Fidei. 

shall  have  eternal  life.  Hence  he  who  does  not  beheve  is  not 
m  Christ,  and  he  who  is  not  in  Christ  is  not  elected."  (1,  1033.) 
"He  who  says  that  we  are  elected  in  Christ,  and  yet  denies 
that  we  are  elected  through  faith,  is  guilty  of  asserting  contra- 
dictory things,  just  as  though  he  were  to  say  we  are  indeed  justi- 
fied in  Christ,  but  not  through  faith."     (1,  1033.) 


PETER  PISCATOR. 

Peter  Piscator*  writes:  "It  is  evident  that  the  word  election 
always  signifies  a  selection  or  separation.  .  .  .  But  we  do  not  here 
understand  an  absolute  and  fatalistic  or  stoic,  that  is  Calvinistic 
and  Satanic  separation,  which  opens  the  uttermost  pit  of  despair 
for  terrified  consciences,  but  we  understand  that  separation  by 
which  God  selected  and  separated,  in  respect  to  the  order  He  in- 
stituted from  eternity,  believers  from  non-believers,  the  penitent 
from  the  impenitent,  and  thus  the  elect  from  the  reprobate,  and 
by  which  He  determined  to  save  the  former  through  faith  in 
Christ,  and  to  damn  the  latter  on  account  of  their  unbelief  and 
their  persistent  impenitence."  (Page  525  of  the  Commentarius. 
in  C.  F.) 

"The  'purpose,'  taken  especially,  is  the  unmerited  purpose 
of  God  to  save  all  men  who  believe  in  Christ.  .  .  .  There  are  such 
promises  as  are  indeed  universal,  yet  by  what  they  presuppose 
Hmit  themselves  to  believers.  For  instance  John  5,  24:  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  He  that  heareth  my  word,  and  believeth 
on  Him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life.  On  these  words  Dr. 
Jacob  Andrese,  as  quoted  by  Andrew  Osiander,  writes:  'To  all 
who  hear  the  Word  and  believe  salvation  is  promised.  And  the 
particularity  of  election  does  not  conflict  with  this  universality  of 
the  Gospel  promises.  For  God  did  not  promise  salvation  to  all 
promiscuously,  but  only  to  believers.  Hence  the  particular  elec- 
tion is  included  in  the  universal  promise,  so  that  no  one  may 
im.agine  the  promise  of  the  Gospel  does  not  apply  to  him  because 

*  Born  at  Hanau,  1571  ;  studied  at  Schleusingen,  Wittenberg,  and 
Jena;  he  was  made  professor  and  Doctor  of  Theology  in  Jena  in  1605. 
Died  1611.  His  "Commentary  on  the  F.  C."  was  published  in  1610,  and 
was  the  most  extensive  work  on  the  Confession  next  to  Hutter's  "Exposi- 
tion." Many  of  the  original  subscribers  were  still  among  the  living  (for 
instance  Schluesselburg,  Weiniger),  and  they  would  assuredly  have  pro- 
tested, if  a  foreign  heretical  sense  had  been  imputed  to  the  Confession. 


Peter  Pi  scat  or.  421 

of  his  sins  or  because  of  an  absolute  decree  fixing  his  inevitable 
damnation."     (Page  559,  561.) 

"Huber,  together  with  the  Calvinists,  invents  an  absolute 
election.  For  they  both  place  the  selection  altogether  in  God's 
antecedent  will,  that  is  in  His  absolute  will,  without  any  regard 
to  or  consideration  of  faith  as  apprehending  Christ  and  His  merit. 
But  in  a  twofold  way  they  again  separate :  1)  The  Calvinists  in- 
vent an  absolute  election  of  only  a  few,  Huber  an  absolute  elec- 
tion of  all;  2)  the  Calvinists  expel  Christ  and  His  merit  entirely 
from  the  act  of  election  .  .  .  Huber,  however,  includes  Christ 
and  His  merit  in  election,  but  again  only  in  an  absolute  way," 
(Page  592.*) 

"We  must  distinguish  between  the  absolute  and  the  condi- 
tional or  limited  will  of  God.  What  God  wills  absolutely  takes 
place  absolutely  and  necessarily;  not,  however,  what  He  wills  with 
a  certain  condition  and  in  a  certain  order,  which  is  not  followed  by 
all,  wherefore  also  all  are  not  saved.  For  it  is  God'  will  that  all 
men  may  be  saved,  not  absolutely,  but  conditionally,  that  is  if 
they  follow  the  order  prescribed  by  God  and  thus  come  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth."     (Page  601.) 

"In  the  subsequent  will,  which  follows  the  antecedent  not 
in  point  of  time,  but  in  point  of  order,  and  is  relatively  subordi- 
nates to  it,  there  are  two  corresponding  decrees.  The  first  re- 
lates to  believers,  the  second  to  non-believers.  The  former  is 
the  decree  of  election,  the  latter  that  of  reprobation.  The  former 
is  unto  life  and  unto  salvation,  the  latter  unto  death  and  unto 
damnation.  The  former  is  a  decree  of  grace  and  mercy,  the  latter 
of  wrath  and  judgment.  The  former  is  constituted  like  an  un- 
earned premium,  the  latter  like  a  merited  punishment.  The 
former  has  regard  to  the  order  as  carried  out,  the  latter  to  this 
order  as  neglected,  and  to  the  counsel  of  God  unto  the  salvation 
of  all  as  this  is  rejected,  despised,  and  scorned.  Luke  7,  30;  Acts 
7;  15;  13,  46.  The  first  decree  declares:  As  I  (God)  live,  I  will 
and  decree  that  every  one  who  perseveringly  believes  in  Christ 
shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  The  second  declares: 
As  I  live,  I  will  and  decree  that  whosoever  does  not  believe  in 


*  Missouri  here  pursues  the  golden  mean  (!)  betwixt  Huber  and  the 
Calvinists  and  teaches  an  election  of  some  for  Christ's  sake,  but  not  in  so 
far  as  He  is  embraced  by  faith;  for  this  it  declares  is  false  doctrine,  al- 
though it  was  the  faith,  doctrine,  and  confession  of  the  original  Church 
of  the  F.  C. 


422  Intuitu  Fidei. 

Christ,  but  contemns,  neglects,  despises  Him,  and  persists  in  un- 
belief unto  the  end  shall  be  damned."     (Page  601.) 

"Although  Huber  does  not  wish  to  appear  as  removing 
Christ  from  the  affair  of  election,  he  nevertheless  takes  in  reality 
only  the  mercy  of  God  (exclusive  of  Christ)  and  the  universal 
love  of  God  as  the  sole  cause  of  election,  and  this  as  the  absolute 
cause,  inasmuch  as  when  faith,  without  which  Christ  benefits 
no  one,  is  excluded,  Christ  Himself  is  removed."     (P.  617.) 

"Since  there  is  a  double  and  diveded  decree,  a  decree  of 
election,  and  a  decree  of  reprobation,  there  is  also  according  tO' 
the  Scriptures  a  certain  reason  for  this  division  .  .  .  namely  on 
the  one  side  faith,  on  the  other  unbelief."     (P.  621.) 

"The  question  is  raised,  did  God  elect  believers  or  such  as 
would  believe.  We  answer  that  both  can  be  understood  in  an 
orthodox  sense.  For  since  God  sees  all  things  in  one  indivisible 
act.  He  predestinates  and  elects  believers  more  properly  than 
such  as  will  believe.  But  if  we  regard  the  act  of  believing  and 
men  themselves,  who  by  the  use  of  the  means  and  through  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  obtain  faith  in  time,  then  it  is  said 
rightly  that  God  has  elected  and  predestinated  such  as  will 
believe  (credituros),  inasmuch  as  the  Scriptures  themselves  em- 
ploy this  form  of  speech.  John  17,  20;  1  Tim.  1,  16  (mellontas 
pisteuein)."     (P.  631.) 

"From  the  Scriptures  we  formulate  the  following  defini- 
tion: Predestination  or  election  is  that  especial  act  of  God,  by 
w^hich,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  from  pure  grace  and 
mercy  in  Christ  and  through  Christ,  in  harmony  with  His  pur- 
pose and  His  foreknowledge.  He  ordained  unto  eternal  life  and 
decreed  to  save,  for  the  praise  of  His  glorious  grace,  those  men, 
who  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel  and  the  use  of  the  Sacraments,  would  believe  per- 
severingly.     Eph.  1,  6.  12."     (P.  643.) 


JOHN  SCHROEDER. 

John  Schroeder*  writes:    "Question:    Are  the  promises  of 
the  Gospel  universal,  that  is  do  they  belong  to  all  men?  —  Lu- 

*  Born  1572  in  Hessia;  was  made  Magister  at  Marburg  in  1592  and 
went  with  Hunnius  to  Wittenberg.  Since  1599  pastor  at  Lauterbach  in. 
Hessia;  1604  Superintendent  at  Schweinfurt;  1611  pastor  primarius  at 
Nuernberg,  where  he  died  in  1621.  He  wrote  much  of  a  polemical  char- 
acter especially  against  the  Calvinists. 


John  Schroeder.  423 

theran  answer:  Yes.  For  they  are  offered  to  all  men,  believers 
and  unbelievers,  penitent  and  impenitent.  But  only  the  penitent 
and  believing  enjoy  them,  because  they  alone  appropriate  them 
by  true  faith.  The  unbelieving  and  wicked  lose  them  through 
their  own  guilt,  because  they  cast  them  away  by  unbelief  and 
impenitence."  (A  brief  and  clear  account  of  the  chief  disputed 
articles  of  the  Christian  religion  between  Lutherans  and  Calvin- 
ists.     1612.       P.  118.) 

"The  passage  John  3,  16,  where  He  declares:  God  so  loved 
the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life, 
also  serves  to  elucidate  our  answer.  For,  in  the  first  place,  we 
have  here  a  promise  and  consolation  derived  from  the  grace 
and  love  of  God  and  from  the  redemption  of  His  Son,  which 
both  extend  over  the  whole  human  race;  for  He  declares:  God 
so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son.  There- 
upon He  promises  eternal  life  not  to  some,  but  to  all,  whom  He 
so  loved  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son  for  them,  but  with 
the  condition,  that  only  whosoever  believes  in  the  Son  shall  have 
eternal  life.  And  He  ofifers  this  promise  together  with  its  con- 
dition to  the  whole  world,  and  thereby  extends  His  gracious  will 
unto  everybody,  as  having  sent  His  Son  into  the  world,  not 
to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world  through  Him  might 
be  saved,  yet  in  this  manner,  that  it  believe  in  the  Son.  Those 
now,  who,  according  to  the  condition  with  which  the  promise 
was  issued,  will  believe,  upon  them  He  promises  to  bestow  eternal 
life  without  fail.  Those,  however,  who  will  not  recognize  the 
good  will  of  God,  but  despise  the  counsel  of  God  regarding 
themselves,  He  threatens  according  to  His  subsequent  just  will 
with  judgment  and  eternal  damnation,  declaring,  John  3,  18: 
He  that  believeth  on  Him  is  not  condemned;  but  he  that  believ- 
eth not  is  condemned  already."     (P.  121.*) 

"God  has  determined  in  His  counsel  according  to  His  fore- 
sight (1  Peter  1,  2)  to  save  the  smallest  number;  but  He  did  not 
so  determine  because  He  did  not  desire  otherwise  than  that  those 


*  The  section  from  which  the  above  passage  is  taken  treats  of  the 
"Predestination  or  Election  of  God."  It  is  clear  that  Schroeder  makes 
the  selection  of  persons,  to  whom  God  has  promised  to  grant  eternal  life 
infallibly  ("without  fail"),  dependent  upon  foreseen  faith.  And  he  states 
this,  not  as  his  private  opinion,  but  as  the  well-known  unanimous  doctrine 
of  the  Lutheran  Church. 


424  hituihi  Fidei. 

only  who  were  embraced  in  this  number  should  be  saved.*  So 
those  also  whom  God  in  time  condemns  He  determined  to  con- 
demn. But  not  in  a  counsel  like  that  contained  in  the  Calvinistic 
absolutum  decretum,  as  though  He  never  desired  that  they  too 
should  be  saved,  or  as  though  He  had  determined  from  the  very 
start  to  condemn  the  greater  number  of  men,  and  then,  since 
no  one  can  be  condemned  without  sin,  had  created  them  to  the 
end  that  they  should  sin,  not  believe,  and  be  damned  in  their 
unbelief.  On  the  contrary,  after  first  determining  to  offer  them 
His  grace  through  Christ  and  the  Gospel,  and  then  seeing  by 
virtue  of  His  foresight  how  the  greater  part  would  not  recognize 
His  gracious  will.  He  resolved  after  such  foresight  to  condemn 
them  for  their  ingratitude  and  unbelief,  John  3,  18.  19;  Mark 
16,  15. t  .  .  .  We  nmst  hold  to  the  difference  between  the  uni- 
versal gracious  will  of  God,  according  to  which  He  meant  it 
well  also  with  unbelievers,  and  between  the  ordination,  accord- 
ing to  which,  following  His  foresight,  and  seeing  which  would 
obediently  accept  His  gracious  will.  He  determined  in  regard  to 

*  Schroeder  knows  nothing  about  a  secret  double  will  of  God,  con- 
taining for  our  reason  an  insolvable  self-contradiction,  namely  1)  a  uni- 
versal will  of  salvation,  which,  as  far  as  the  fixed  decree  is  concerned,  de- 
mands and  presupposes  repentance  and  faith  and  for  this  reason  depends 
also,  as  far  as  the  outcome  is  concerned,  on  man's  conduct;  2)  a  particular 
will  of  salvation,  which  at  once  fixes  and  guarantees  the  salvation  of  sin- 
ners in  Adam,  and  accordingly  executes  itself  by  means  of  the  infallible 
production  of  repentance  and  faith.  This  is  nothing  but  a  little  Calvinistic 
Missourian  invention!  Calvinists,  however,  who  taught  this  unequal  will 
of  grace  differed  to  their  advantage  from  Missouri  in  acknowledging 
openly  that  God's  gracious  will  is,  according  to  their  belief,  not  the  same 
for  all  men,  but  different  in  this  and  in  that  respect.  Missouri,  on  the 
other  hand,  takes  this  beautiful  term  "predestination",  and  in  reality 
teaches  a  second  fundamentally  different  will  of  grace,  and  then  denies  the 
fact  absolutely.     But  they  will  find  their  judge  soon  enough! 

t  "Why,  that  is  our  doctrine!"  —  Missouri  cries  —  "We  too  teach  that 
God  resolved  to  condemn  no  one  from  the  start,  but  only  after  foreseeing 
their  unbelief  and  impenitence."  —  Well,  it  is  very  good  of  Missouri  to 
teach  this  when  it  happens  to  suit.  But  every  one  can  judge  how  the  case 
stands  according  to  Missouri.  In  the  case  of  some,  when  God  decided 
in  regard  to  their  "salvation  or  condemnation",  He  would  not  take  the 
assistance  of  His  foresight  of  human  conduct,  but  simply  set  aside  this 
foresight,  and  ordained  at  once  that  these  sinners  should  not  be  con- 
demned, that  they  "shall  and  must  be  saved."  In  the  case  of  the  rest, 
however.  His  foresight  of  their  conduct  v/as  to  decide  the  question: 
"Saved  or  damned?"  And  thus  left  to  themselves  and  their  own  choice, 
their  doom  was  sealed. 


Ltike  Osia?ider,  Jr.  425 

these  that  they  should  be  eternally  saved,  in  regard  to  the  rest, 
however,  who  cast  the  Word  of  God  from  them,  that  they  should 
be  cast  out  from  the  grace  of  God."     (P.  127.) 

"They  have  the  orthodox  opinion  who  declare  that  no  one 
is  saved  either  absolutely  or  on  account  of  the  foreseen  merit 
of  works  or  of  faith,  to  say  nothing  of  teaching  that  any  one 
is  absolutely  rejected.  These,  keeping  the  middle  path,  exclude 
(in  opposition  to  the  Pelagians  and  Semi-Pelagians)  the  fore- 
sight of  works  and  of  faith,  considered  as  meritorious;  and  on 
the  other  hand  they  speak  (in  opposition  to  those  who  forge  an 
absolute  decree)  of  the  condition  of  faith,  but  in  a  manner  entirely 
different  from  Semi-Pelagians.  For  they  do  not  make  faith 
depend  on  the  powders  of  free  will,  but  agree  with  the  declaration 
of  the  synod  of  Orange  (Arausio),  where  these  remains  of  Pelag- 
ianism  were  rejected.  This  declaration  is:  'No  one  can  believe 
or, persevere  without  the  help  of  divine  grace.'  .  .  .  Nor  do  they 
consider  faith  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  virtue,  a  work,  and  a  charisma 
in  man,  which  imbues  him  with  a  new  constitution,  but  in  so  far 
as  it  embraces  and  holds  fast  Christ  the  only  and  truly  meri- 
torious cause  of  our  salvation.  Considered  in  this  manner,  faith 
is  so  far  removed  from  being  taken  as  a  meritorious  cause  of 
salvation  and  predestination,  that  the  apostle  places  it  in  most 
striking  opposition  to  good  works  or  merits,  and  subordinates 
it  to  the  divine  grace  and  mercy.  Eph.  2,  8.  9.  Therefore,  they 
do  not  say  that  we  are  elected  for  the  sake  of  faith,  as  though 
foreseen  faith  were  a  cause  of  election,  or  that  we  are  elected 
on  account  of  the  worthiness  and  the  merit  of  faith,  but  'in  faith,' 
showing  the  condition  which  God,  electing  in  grace,  foresees 
and  requires  in  man  who  is  to  be  elected.  And  what  they  main- 
tain they  prove  clearly  by  the  Holy  Scriptures."  (Fascic.  Con- 
trov.  1611.  p.  572.) 

LUKE  OSIANDER,  JR. 

Luke  Osiander,  the  younger*  writes:  "In  regard  to  the  will 
of  God  we  must  remember  that  it  is  only  one,  eternal,  and  con- 
stant, but  that  it  is  considered  in  a  double  aspect,  according  to 


*  Son  of  the  older  Luke  Osiander,  to  whom  Dr.  Walther  appealed, 
against  his  own  conscience  and  better  knowledge,  in  attempting  to  make 
his  opponents  Huberians.  The  younger  L.  O.  was  born  1571  at  Stuttgart, 
was  in  the  ministry  since  1591,  and  afterwards  professor  at  Tuebingen. 
The  writing  from  which  we  quote  was  printed  in  1605. 


426  Int2iit2i  Fidei. 

its  twofold  objects:  that  is  in  respect  to  those  who  follow  God's 
will,  and  in  respect  to  those  who  resist;  i.  e.  that  as  God  will  save 
those  believing  in  Christ,  so  also  He  will  damn  the  unbelieving" 
and  despising.  For  better  instruction  the  will  of  God  is  dis- 
tinguished as  antecedent  and  subsequent.  The  antecedent  is  the 
same  as  God's  love,  and  is  the  good  pleasure,  the  eternal  counsel 
and  decree  of  God  desiring  all  men  altogether,  who  were  lost 
through  sin,  to  be  saved  through  the  Savior  Christ,  who  must 
be  embraced  by  faith.  The  subsequent  will,  however,  is  the  same 
as  the  election  of  God's  children  properly  so-called,  and  is  the 
eternal  counsel  or  decree  of  God  to  save  believers  and  to  con- 
demn unbelievers.  The  antecedent  will,  accordingly,  or  the  love 
of  God,  is  universal.  The  subsequent  will,  however,  or  the  elec- 
tion, is  particular,  since  it  is  limited  by  faith  in  Christ.  But  the 
cause  of  this  particularity  is  not  God,*  but  the  perverted  and 
wicked  will  of  men  who  contemn  and  scorn  the  Word  of  God 
and  the  Gospel."  (Handbook  of  Controversies  with  Calvinists, 
p.  212.) 

The  objection  of  the  Calvinists,  emphasized  to-day  also  by 
Missouri,  that  Paul  declares  clearly:  "God  has  mercy  on  whom 
He  will  have  mercy,  and  hardens  whom  He  will  harden,"f  is 
answered  by  Osiander  as  follows:   "I  reply:  1)  Paul  says  'whom 


*  As  Missouri  to-day  teaches  together  with  the  Calvinists,  saying: 
in  the  will  of  God  lies  the  "mystery"  for  God's  declaring  on  the  one  hand 
indeed  that  He  would  save  all,  but  on  the  other  hand  making  use  of  His 
sovereign  right  to  have  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  although  He 
could  just  as  easily  have  had  mercy  on  all. 

t  Of  late,  indeed,  Missouri  did  not  so  fearlessly  quote  this  passage  in 
its  absolutistic  sense,  as  in  the  beginning.  It  is  still  a  little  repugnant  to 
them  to  place  beside  their  unconditional  election  unto  salvation  the  self- 
evident  reverse,  the  equally  unconditional  omission  of  the  rest,  although 
the  "mystery"  of  the  election  already  in  reality  includes  both  sides,  and 
appears  so  mysterious  only  in  this  its  connection,  refusing  to  "harmonize" 
with  the  universal  will  of  grace.  But  what  miserable  students  of  Scripture 
they  must  be  who  say,  these  words:  "He  hath  mercy  on  whom  He  will 
have  mercy",  show  that  God  here  deals  only  according  to  His  secret  free 
will,  without  regarding  in  any  way  man's  conduct;  but  these  words:  "He 
hardens,  whom  He  will  harden"  are  to  be  so  understood  that  God  does 
not  here  deal  according  to  His  secret  mere  good  pleasure,  but  according 
to  the  revealed  order  of  salvation,  and  does  most  exactly  regard  the  con- 
duct of  men!  Should  not  such  "Scripture"  theologians  be  switched  thor- 
oughly for  their  rascally  insolence  with  which  they  twist  the  words  of 
Holy  Scripture  according  to  their  pleasure?  Well,  the  rod  will  come  in 
due  time! 


Luke  Osiander,  Jr.  427 

He  will';  this  our  opponents  interpret,  as  though  God  willed 
absolutely,  without  any  antecedent  cause,  merely  holding  a  mil- 
itary review,  to  save  these  and  to  damn  those.  But  the  Scrip- 
tures do  not  so  speak  of  God's  will,  for  they  draw  the  line  in 
His  will  Vv'ith  respect  to  faith  and  unbelief,  repentance  and  impen- 
itence. Christ  Himself  explains  the  Father's  will:  This  is  the 
will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  that  whosoever  seeth  the  Son  and 
believeth  on  Him  shall  have  everlasting  life,  John  6,  40.  And 
John  testifies,  declaring:  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath 
everlasting  life;  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see 
life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him.  John  3,  36.  Whereas 
the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  will  of  God  in  their  customary  man- 
ner, our  opponents  however  in  a  new,  stoic  manner  unknown 
to  the  Scriptures,  they  speak  of  an  entirely  different  tiling,  and 
the  argumentation  lacks  connection.  2)  It  is  said  of  God  that 
He  hardens  men,  not  absolutely  and  unconditionally,  but  He 
hardens  those  who  obstinately  despise,  scorn,  and  blaspheme  the 
Word,  of  whom  therefore  no  unconditional  hardening  can  be 
predicated."     (P.  228.*) 

The  objection:  "If  God  earnestly  desires  to  have  all  men 
saved,  why  then  does  He  not  give  faith  to  all?"  is  answered  by 
Osiander  as  follows:  "It  is  not  God's  fault,  but  the  fault  of  men 
that  all  have  not  faith.  For  of  God  Paul  declares:  He  now  com- 
mandeth  all  men  everywhere  to  repent;  because  He  hath  ap- 
pointed a  day,  in  which  He  will  judge  the  world  in  righteous- 
ness by  that  man  whom  He  hath  ordained;  whereof  He  hath 
given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  He  hath  raised  Him  from 
the  dead.  Acts  17,  30.  31.  But  faith  is  not  given  of  God  imme- 
diately, but  mediately,  through  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments 
through  which  God  works  faith  in  us.  That  many,  therefore, 
do  not  obtain  faith  m'ast  be  ascribed,  not  to  God,  but  to  wicked 
and  perverted  men  who  either  do  not  hear  the  Word  at  all^ 
keeping  aloof  from  the  workshop  of  the   Holy  Spirit,   or  hear 


*  Missouri,  however,  applies  the  word:  "He  hath  mercy  on  whom  He 
will  have  mercy,  and  whom  He  will  He  hardens",  to  the  whole  multitude 
of  sinners,  as  they  lie  by  nature  in  the  same  depravity  and  resistance.  Here 
already,  they  tell  us,  without  perceiving  any  difference  on  the  part  of  men, 
He  had  mercy  on  some  in  such  a  way  as  to  remove  from  them  even  their 
wilful  resistance,  while  He  could  "just  as  easily"  have  removed  it  from 
all  without  exception!  The  "mystery"  therefore  is  only,  why  He  does  not 
do  this,  why  He  "hardens  whom  He  will  harden."  Two  wills  in  God  for 
sinners! 


428  Intuitu  Fidei. 

it  superficially,  or  remain  attached  to  the  lusts  and  desires  of 
their  hearts,  as  the  parables  of  Christ  explain  (Matt.  22;  Luke 
14.)"     (P.  240.) 


ALBERT   QRAUER. 

Albert  Grauer*  writes:  "Although  the  will  of  God  is  in  itself 
altogether  simple  and  a  unit,  yet,  as  far  as  the  act  of  willing  is 
concerned,  a  double  aspect  results,  namely  in  regard  to  the  ob- 
jects, when  God's  will  occupies  itself  with  His  creatures.  For 
certain  things  God  wills  absolutely,  and  these  always  take  place, 
as  for  instance  creation,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  etc.,  con- 
cerning which  the  Psalm  (1153)  declares:  He  hath  done  what- 
soever He  hath  pleased.  And  Paul  (Rom.  9):  For  who  hath 
resisted  His  will?  Of  this  act  of  His  will  we  are  not  speaking 
here.  Other  things,  however,  God  wills  conditionally,  only  if  the 
condition  is  fulfilled.  And  these  things  God  indeed  wills  earn- 
estly, but  they  do  not  always  take  place,  because  the  appended 
condition  is  not  always  fulfilled.  Concerning  such  things  we 
must  understand  the  passages:  All  day  long  I  have  stretched 
forth  my  hands  unto  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people;  How 
often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  etc.  And  of 
such  acts  of  will  we  speak,  when  we  say  that  God  wills  the  sal- 
vation of  all  and  of  every  one."     (Absurda  Calvinistica,  p.  231.) 

"From  these  (Eph.  1,  4;  2  Thess.  2,  13;  John  1.  12;  Heb.  11, 
'6;  Mark  16,  16;  John  3,  18)  and  similar  passages  we  conclude  with 
assurance:  1)  That  the  decree  concerning  the  selection  of  those 
to  be  saved  is  not  absolute,  but  limited  in  Christ  as  embraced 
by  faith,  so  that  God's  will  indeed  is  the  first  efficient  cause  of  our 
salvation  and  also  of  our  election,  but  Christ  and  His  merit  ap- 
prehended by  faith  the  impelling  and  meritorious  cause;  2)  we 
conclude  from  the  above  passages  that  the  decree  of  reprobation 


*  Born  1575  near  Perleberg  in  Brandenburg,  where  his  father  was 
pastor.  He  studied  at  Rostock  (therefore  under  Chytrseus),  at  Frankfurt 
on  the  Oder  (under  Corner),  at  Jena,  and  at  Wittenberg,  where  he  was 
made  Magister.  Afterwards  he  was  made  professor  at  Jena,  and  finally 
General  Superintendent  at  Weimar,  where  he  died  in  1617.  On  account 
of  his  many  excellent  writings  in  defense  of  the  Lutheran  Confession  he 
was  called  "the  shield  and  sword  of  Lutheranism."  The  Absurda  Cal- 
vinistica was  published  in  1605. 


Albert  Graiier.  429 

is  not  unconditional,  but  that  its  cause  is  the  sins  of  men,  and 
these  in  so  far  as  they  are  connected  with  persistent  impenitence."* 

"If  we  have  been  elected  unto  eternal  life  absolutely,  only 
for  the  sake  of  the  will  of  God,  without  the  consideration  of  Christ 
embraced  by  faith,  and  if  thus  the  will  of  God  alone,  without 
Christ  as  embraced  by  faith,  is  the  cause  of  our  election,  then  it 
follows  that  we  are  also  justified  and  saved  absolutely,  only  for 
the  sake  of  the  will  of  God,  without  the  consideration  of  Christ 
embraced  by  faith,  and  that  only  the  will  of  God,  without  the  con- 
sideration of  Christ's  merit  as  embraced  by  faith,  is  the  cause  of 
our  salvation.  Our  right  to  draw  this  conclusion  is  self-evident; 
for  we  are  justified  and  saved  in  time  as  God  in  eternity  deter- 
mined to  justify  and  save  us."     (Page  244. f) 

"The  elect  please  God,  as  the  Scriptures  everywhere  testify. 
But  the  elect  are  regarded  in  the  decree  of  selection  as  having 
no  faith;  for  according  to  the  Calvinists  faith  is  no  constituent 


*  Grauer  declares  that  Lutherans  conclude  from  these  passages,  which 
treat  of  the  universal  will  of  grace  and  the  universal  order  of  grace,  that 
the  decree  of  election  as  well  as  that  of  reprobation  is  not  absolute  and 
regardless.  The  Calvinists  made  election  in  realty  an  unconditional 
selection  (with  an  unconditional  omission  of  the  rest),  without  concerning 
themselves  about  the  rest  of  the  teaching  of  Scripture  regarding  the  will 
of  God  respecting  the  salvation  of  all  men.  Missouri  has  discovered  a 
new  middle  path.  They  tell  us  that  the  passages  treating  of  the  selection 
need  not  harmonize  with  the  universal  Gospel;  those,  however,  treating 
of  non-election  must  harmonize  with  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  will  of 
grace.  The  selection,  therefore,  they  say,  is  an  unrevealed  mystery,  non- 
election  on  the  other  hand  something  clearly  revealed  —  and  still  again 
the  real  mystery!  ! 

t  Note  that  according  to  Grauer  there  is  no  third  possibility  between 
a  selection  for  salvation  "absolute,  only  on  account  of  God's  will",  and 
a  selection  "in  consideration  of  Christ  embraced  by  faith."  According  to 
the  Lutheran  view  of  the  Gospel  there  can  be  no  third,  since  Christ's  merit 
has  absolutely  nothing  particular  in  it,  and  therefore  cannot  be  in  itself 
the  cause  of  a  particular  result.  According  to  the  Calvinistic  opinion  the 
particular  merit  of  Christ,  as  they  view  it,  could  indeed  be  the  correspond- 
ing cause  of  a  particular  decree  for  the  bestowal  of  salvation.  To  be  sure, 
this  wonderful  piece  of  wisdom,  that  Christ's  universal  merit  considered 
in  itself,  without  its  appropriation  or  application,  produces  a  particular 
election  in  God,  whereas  God  earnestly  desires  to  save  all  men  —  re- 
mained to  be  discovered  by  the  reformer  of  the  19th  century.  —  Note 
further:  That  which  is  a  cause  in  the  execution  must  also  be  a  cause  in 
the  decree  itself;  and  vice  versa:  That  which  is  no  cause  in  the  decree 
regarding  the  salvation  only  of  certain  persons  cannot  be  a  real  cause  in 
the  execution  of  this  decree. 


430  Intidtic  Fidei. 

part  of  the  decree  of  election,  but  only  a  subordinate  effect,*  and 
can  in  no  way  (according  to  their  notion)  be  an  instrumental 
cause  of  election;  in  fact,  no  attention  whatever  is  paid  to  faith 
in  the  decree  itself.  Consequently,  some  men"  (according  to 
Calvinistic  doctrine)  "please  God  without  faith,  in  the  decree 
itself.  For  the  same  cause  the  elect  will  please  God  also  with- 
out Christ,  in  the  decree  of  election  itself,  since  without  faith 
Christ  would  benefit  no  man  and  no  one  could  have  part  in  Him." 
(Page  246.) 

"As  we  are  justified  for  Christ's  sake,  so  also  we  are  predes- 
tinated for  Christ's  sake,  as  Zanchius"  (a  CaWinist)  "testifies  in 
the  words  quoted.  But  we  are  justified  for  Christ's  sake  in  this 
manner,  that  Christ  embraced  by  faith  is  the  cause  of  our  justifi- 
cation, God  being  impelled  by  Christ  as  embraced  by  faith  to  jus- 
tify us;  and  not  the  mere  will  of  God  is  the  cause  of  justification, 
as  the  Scriptures  testify  everywhere.  This  deduction  evidently 
upsets  the  dogma  of  Calvin"  (and  of  Dr.  Walther).  "Nor  is  there 
any  reason  to  object  that  neither  faith  nor  Christ's  merit  did  then 
actually  exist.  I  know  this,  but  reply  that  Paul  declares,  Rom. 
8,  and  Peter  in  his  first  Epistle,  chapter  1,  that  we  are  elected  ac- 
cording to  the  prognosis  of  God,  and  here  prognosis  cannot  sig- 
nify the  same  as  predestination, f  for  Paul  distinguishes  between 
these  words  by  means  of  a  gradation:  Whom  He  did  foreknow 
(praescivit),  them  He  also  did  predestinate."     (Page  250.) 

"If  in  the  decree  of  election  no  attention  was  paid  to  faith 
(L  speak  not  of  its  execution,  but  of  the  decree  itself)  then  it  fol- 
lows that  Paul  wrote  falsely,  2  Thess.  2,  13:  God  has  chosen 
us  unto  salvation  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  in  belief  of 
the  truth.  But  according  to  the  Calvinists  no  attention  was  paid 
to  faith  in  the  decree  of  election  itself,  as  their  words  just  quoted 
shows. $     Consequently,  Paul  must  have  contradicted  the  truth 


*  Self-evidently  an  efifect  "decreed  along"  with  everything  else,  a  ne- 
cessary means  for  obtaining  salvation.  But  when  Missouri  declares  that 
the  Calvinists  did  not  even  admit  faith  as  a  decreed  means  of  salvation,  it 
lies  again.  To  lie  in  all  directions  has  come  to  be  their  second  nature 
They  indeed  know  better,  but  they  are  compelled  to  lie. 

t  As  Calvinists  and  Missourians  claim.  Please  don't  think  of  Sam- 
son's foxes! 

X  And  this  in  principle  constitutes  the  Harmonia  Calvino-Missouriana. 
Faith  in  Christ,  or  the  appropriation  of  Christ's  merit  is  not  to  be  the  pre- 
supposition of  the  decree  of  election  separating  the  whole  multitude  of 
sinners  into  such  as  shall  be  saved  and  such  as  shall  not  be  saved,  but  only 


Albert  Grauer.  431 

when  he  wrote,  that  God  chose  us  unto  salvation  in  beUef  of  the 
truth.  But  this  conckision  is  absurd  and  wicked.  Furthermore: 
If  election  took  place  in  belief  of  the  truth,  it  did  not  take  place 
according  to  the  mere  good  pleasure  of  the  divine  will.  But  I 
would  have  it  noted  that  faith  is  here  considered  not  according  to 
its  own  worthiness,  in  so  far  as  it  constitutes  a  certain  qualifica- 
tion, for  it  is  not  so  considered  in  justification,  but  in  relation  to 
its  object,  namely  Christ.  Hence  we  say  here:  not  for  the  sake 
of  faith  as  a  merit  (propter),  but  through  (per)  faith  as  a  means, 
or  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merit  as  embraced  by  faith.  We  know 
too  that  faith  as  it  exists  in  reality  is  a  result  of  election,  yet  it  is 
not  for  this  reason  absurd  to  say  that  foreseen  faith  as  such  (ut 
praevisa)  and  considered  with  regard  to  Christ's  merit  is  an  in- 
strumental cause  in  relation  to  ourselves,  for  even  Christ's  merit, 
or  His  suffering,  is  a  result  of  predestination*  and  still  in  its  way 
also  a  cause,  since  God  elected  according  to  His  prognosis.  In 
fact,  the  Calvinists  themselves  declare  that  the  glory  and  praise 
of  God  and  the  revelation  of  His  mercy  is  the  cause  of  predesti- 
nation and  at  the  same  time  its  effect."     (Page  251.) 

"If  it  is  Pelagian  to  teach  that  foreseen  faith  is  an  instru- 
mental cause  of  election  and  that  in  the  decree  of  election  faith 
was  taken  into  consideration,  then  it  follows  that  it  must  likewise 
be  Pelagian  to  teach  that  faith  as  it  exists  in  fact  is  an  instrumental 
cause  of  justification  and  that  in  justification  faith  was  taken  into 
consideration.  The  point  of  proof  is  this:  In  every  respect  just 
as  faith  actually  present  is  related  to  justification,  so  also  faith 
foreseen  is  related  to  election. f     Hence,  whatever  is  objected  to 


an  annex  or  appendage  of  this  decree  of  separation,  only  a  means  decreed 
along,  and  a  point  of  transition.  Faith,  we  are  told,  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  election  as  such,  this  is  governed  only  by  the  "secret  pleasure'' 
and  mere  good  pleasure  of  God. 

*  For  if  God  in  eternity,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  had  in- 
stituted no  counsel  of  salvation  and  no  predestination,  the  Son  would 
not  have  come  into  the  world  to  redeem  sinners,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  not  have  been  sent  to  sanctify  them. 

t  Here  again  we  have  the  "Proton  pseudos",  the  fundamental  error  of 
the  present  opponents  of  Missouri,  namely  that  foreseen  faith  is  related 
to  election  just  as  actual  faith  is  related  to  justification.  It  is  remarkable 
indeed  that  the  present  opponents  of  Missouri  always  bring  up  the  same 
"heresies"  which  our  Lutheran  fathers,  even  back  to  the  F.  C.  men,  main- 
tained in  opposition  to  Calvinism!  And  still  more  remarkable,  that  we  are 
told,  these  opponents  of  Missouri  have  "laid  the  wicked  egg  of  their  syner- 
gistic Pelagian  doctrine  of  predestination"  only  now!     We  already  rejoice 


432  Intuitu  Fidei. 

foreseen  faith  as  considered  in  election  must  likewise  be  objected 
to  faith  actually  present  as  considered  in  justification,  and  ap- 
plies there  in  the  same  way.  For  justification  is  the  execution 
of  the  decree  of  election.  Therefore,  just  as  justification  is  of 
grace  and  still  faith  is  not  excluded,  so  also  election  is  indeed  of 
grace,  but  faith  is  not  on  this  account  excluded.  For  this  reason 
Paul  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans  argues  from  election  to  justifica- 
tion,* which  argument  would  have  no  validity,  if  faith  had  to  be 
excluded  from  the  decree  of  election."     (Page  253.) 


JOHN    FOERSTER. 

John  Foerster,  the  youngerf  writes:  "The  will  of  God's 
good  pleasure  is,  according  to  the  exceedingly  useful  distinc- 
tion introduced  by  Damascenus,  twofold:  the  antecedent  and  the 
subsequent  will  of  God.  The  former  is  the  burning  desire  of 
God,  wishing  earnestly,  constantly,  and  fervently  tliat  all  men 
may  be  saved  through  Christ  embraced  by  faith.  Damascenus: 
'We  must  know  that  God  wills  antecedently  that  all  may  be 
saved  and  become  partakers  of  His  kingdom.  For  He  did  not 
create  us  to  the  end  that  we  should  suffer  punishment,  but  that 
we  may  partake  of  His  goodness  as  He  Himself  is  good.'  This 
is  the  decree  of  this  will:  I  will  and  decree  that  all  men  may 
believe  in  Christ  and  be  saved.  As  this  is  shown  by  the  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  which  treat  of  this  will.  Ezek.  18  and  33; 
1  Tim.  2,  4;  2  Peter  3,  9.  .  .  .  The  subsequent  will  is  not 
contradictory  to   the  antecedent,  but   subordinate   to   it.ij:     This 

in  thinking  of  the  time  when  all  this  will  be  finally  investigated.  "That 
day  will  make  it  clear."     Does  St.  Louis  also  rejoice  to  think  of  it? 

*If  this  is  so,  then  Paul  already  and  the  Holy  Spirit  harbored  this 
"fundamental  error",  that  election  and  justification  are  analoga,  articles 
of  faith  corresponding  to  each  other,  articles  which  must  for  this  reason 
harmonize  with  each  other!  The  F.  C  is  self-evidently  entangled  in  the 
same  "fundamental  error"  —  and  in  a  few  others.     We  shall  see! 

tBorn  1576  at  Aurbach;  studied  at  Leipzig  under  Mylius  and 
Schmuck;  was  made  Doctor  of  Theology  in  1603  and  professor  at  Wit- 
tenberg in  1609.     His  Thesaurus  Catecheticus  he  did  not  publish  till  1610. 

X  Missouri,  to  be  sure,  very  naturally  hates  this  distinction  employed 
by  our  Lutheran  fathers  as  a  mediation  which  destroys  the  (Calvinistic 
Missourian)  "mystery"  of  the  particularity  of  election.  Missourians  pre- 
fer to  teach  two  irreconcilable  wills  in  God.  of  which  they  say:  They 
not  only  apparently  contradict  each  other;    but  the   contradiction   is   an 


John  Foerster.  43S 

appears  clearly  from  the  precious  passage:  God  so  loved  the 
world  .  .  .  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish^ 
but  have  everlasting  life.  In  the  same  way  from  the  parables 
concerning  the  great  supper,  Luke  14,  and  concerning  the  royal 
marriage  feast.  Matt.  22.  There  are,  moreover,  in  this  subse- 
quent will  of  God,  two  decrees  corresponding  to  each  other,  in 
regard  to  two  classes  of  men:  believers  and  unbelievers.  The 
one  decree  is  that  of  election  unto  life,  which  pertains  to  believers 
and  declares:  I  will  and  decree  that  all  who  believe  perseveringly 
in  Christ  shall  have  eternal  life.  The  other  decree  is  that  of  the 
judgment  and  the  rejection  unto  damnation,  which  pertains  to 
unbelievers  and  has  for  its  contents:  *I  will  and  decree  that  all 
who  do  not  believe  perseveringly  in  Christ  shall  perish  and  be 
condemned.  These  passages  speak  of  the  will  of  election:  John 
6,  40:  This  is  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which 
seeth  the  Son  and  believeth  on  Him  may  have  everlasting  life. 
1  Cor.  1,  21:  It  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching 
to  save  them  that  believe.  .  .  .  The  antecedent  will  refers  to  the 
granting  of  salvation  on  the  part  of  God,  as  He  offers  it  earn- 
estly to  all  men  through  the  means  they  are  to  use.  The  sub' 
sequent  will  refers  to  the  acceptance  of  salvation  on  the  part  of 
men,  who  are  either  made  actual  partakers  of  it  through  the 
means  properly  employed,  or  are  not  made  partakers  because 
they  have  obstinately  rejected  the  means.  Predestination  must 
be  sought  not  in  the  antecedent  but  in  the  subsequent  will  of 


actual  reality.  For  they  teach  1)  a  (universal)  will  of  grace  according  to 
which  God  wills  to  receive  in  grace,  to  justify,  and  to  save  only  those  who 
repent  and  believe  as  such,  stringently  excluding  all  who  are  still  uncon- 
verted and  without  faith.  We  say  "wills"  with  emphasis;  for  it  is  the 
essence  of  the  universal  will  of  grace  to  limit  the  actual  participation  in  the 
blessings  of  salvation  (whether  they  be  considered  before,  in,  or  after 
time)  to  believers  as  such;  and  this  universal  will  wills  to  form  a  fixed 
decree  concerning  the  actual  bestowal  of  salvation  only  in  regard  to  be- 
lievers and  in  regard  to  no  one  without  faith.  So  then  even  the  elect,  in 
so  far  as  they  are  considered  as  still  being  without  faith,  would  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  decree  bestowing  salvation  by  this  limitation  in  the  uni- 
versal will  of  grace,  because  they  would  still  be  without  Christ.  But  2) 
Missouri  teaches  its  "predestination"  as  a  second  will  of  grace,  which 
decrees  firmly  in  regard  to  men  without  faith,  they  shall  and  must  be 
saved.  So  then  God,  according  to  one  will,  excludes  the  elect  from  His 
ordination,  and  according  to  the  other  He  includes  them,  considering 
them  in  both  instances  as  without  faith;  in  fact  this  faithless  condition 
formed  the  reason  for  their  preliminary  exclusion! 


434  Intuitu  Fidei. 

God.  For  to  constitute  it  the  mercy  of  God  alone  and  the  uni- 
versal merit  of  Christ  do  not  suffice;  the  entire  order  of  predes- 
tination (taxis  prooristike)  is  demanded  in  addition,  for  the  de- 
cree of  predestination  depends  on  this  complete  order."*  (Thes. 
Catech.     3rd  petition.) 

JOHN  GERHARD. 

John  Gerhard*  writes:  "Christ's  merit  is  the  cause  of  our 
election.  But  since  Christ's  merit  benefits  no  one  without  faith, 
we  say  that  regard  to  faith  must  be  included  in  the  decree  of 
election.  We  confess  with  a  loud  voice  that  we  teach  that  God 
found  nothing  good  in  man  who  was  to  be  elected  unto  eternal 
life,  because  He  did  not  so  regard  either  good  works  or  the  use 
of  the  free  will,  or  even  faith,  that,  moved  thereby,  or  on  this 
account  He  elected  some.  On  the  contrary,  we  say  that  the 
one  and  only  merit  of  Christ  was  the  thing  whose  worthiness 
God  considered,  and  that  in  mere  grace  He  formed  the  decree 
of  election.  Since,  however,  Christ's  merit  is  found  in  man  only 
through  faith,  we  teach  that  election  took  place  in  view  of  the 

*  What  a  glorious  unanimity  in  regard  to  the  Eldoge  among  all  these 
theologians  who  had  grown  up  in  the  time  and  in  the  Church  of  the  F.  C. ! 
He  who  would  not  make  himself  utterly  ridiculous,  who  would  not  shame- 
fully slander  the  Lutheran  Church  in  its  very  prime  and  in  the  period  of 
its  greatest  glory,  dare  not  assume  that  all  these  original  subscribers,  and 
in  addition  the  entire  original  Church  of  the  F.  C,,  either  never  under- 
stood their  own  Confession,  or  one  and  all  at  once  deviated  and  fell  away 
from  it.  And  if  those  of  St.  Louis  were  honorable  men  and  no  counter- 
feiters and  falsifiers  of  history,  they  would  not  have  refused  to  pay  proper 
attention  to  this  historical  side  of  the  case. 

t  Born  1.582  at  Quedlinburg;  studied  Medicine  since  1599  at  Witten- 
berg; went  to  Jena  in  1603  and  studied  theology;  also  at  Marburg  in 
1604.  In  1605  he  began  to  give  theological  lectures  at  Jena  "mit  Ruhm." 
In  1606  he  was  made  Superintendent  at  Heldburg  and  professor  of  the- 
ology in  the  Seminary  at  Coburg.  Since  1615  he  labored  as  professor  at 
Jena,  where  he  died  in  1637.  —  Gerhard  studied  at  three  universities  under 
men  who  had  all  been  defenders  of  the  F.  C.  already  at  the  time  of  its 
adoption  and  most  of  whom  had  been  actual  subscribers.  He  grew  up  — 
so  to  speak  —  in  the  pure  air  of  the  F.  C.  And  the  entire  Lutheran  Church 
at  that  time  —  from  one  end  of  it  to  the  other,  in  the  north  as  in  the  south, 
in  the  east  as  in  the  west  —  is  thoroughly  unanimous  against  the  Cal- 
vinists  on  this  point,  that  the  limitation  of  God's  will  of  grace,  which 
appears  in  His  elective  decree  regarding  the  bestowal  of  salvation  only 
upon  certain  sinners,  is  due  to  the  foreseen  difference  between  those  be- 
lieving in  Christ  and  those  wilfully  rejecting  their  salvation. 


John   Gerhard.  435 

merit  of  Christ  apprehended  by  faith.  We  say,  therefore,  that 
those  all  and  those  alone  were  elected  of  God  from  eternity  unto 
salvation,  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  by  the  efficacy  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  through  the  ministration  of  the  Gospel  they  would 
truly  believe  in  Christ  the  Redeemer  and  persevere  to  the  end 
of  life."*     (Loc.  de  El.     §  IGl.) 

"We  briefly  state  the  reasons  for  this  our  proposition. f  —  1) 
Election  took  place  in  Christ,  Eph.  1,  4.  But  we  are  not  in  Christ 
except  through  faith,  Eph.  3,  17.  Therefore,  the  mellontas  pis- 
teuein  (those  who  will  believe  in  the  future,  1  Tim.  1,  16)  are 
the  elect.  2) 'Furthermore:  Election  is  the  eternal  decree  of 
God  to  justify  and  save  men.  But  God  justifies  and  saves  men 
in  time  only  through  faith,  Rom.  3,  4;  Gal.  2,  3;  Eph.  2,  8. 
Therefore  also,  He  decreed  from  eternity  to  justify  and  save 
only  those  who  will  believe  (credituros),  and  consequently  He 
elected  those  only  and  those  all  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they 
would  remain  in  Christ  through  faith.     3)  No  one  is  elected  out- 

•  *  In  spite  of  their  ugly  cry:  "Fathers!  fathers!"  Missouri  would  like 
exceedingly  to  have  it  appear,  as  though  after  all  in  the  chief  points  these 
decried  "fathers"  are  on  her  side,  and  that  we  opponents  were  entirely 
wrong  in  appealing  to  the  utterances  of  the  fathers  and  to  their  contention 
against  the  Calvinists  respecting  the  Intuitu  fidei.  And  how  does  Mis- 
souri proceed  to  save  appearances?  Why  the  fathers  are  quoted  as  Dr. 
Walther  always  quotes  the  above  testimony  of  Gerhard;  he  begins  with 
the  words:  "We  confess  with  a  loud  voice",  and  breaks  ofif  with  the 
words:  "in  mere  grace  He  formed  l:he  decree  of  election."  All  that  pre- 
cedes and  all  that  follows,  as  we  have  given  it  in  full  above,  Dr.  Walther 
nicely  leaves  out,  so  that  the  impression  may  not  be  spoiled  which  these 
words,  torn  from  their  connection,  must  make  upon  unsuspicious  readers, 
when  quoted  alone  as  done  by  Dr.  Walther.  In  general,  the  mode  and 
manner  in  which  Dr.  Walther  in  this  "most  recent  controversy"  has  quoted 
the  fathers  —  for  instance  Dannhauer,  Seb.  Schmidt,  Kromayer,  Knoes  — 
is  that  of  the  most  ordinary  falsifier  of  history  or  that  of  the  most  con- 
scienceless pettifogger.  By  leaving  out  the  chief  passages  he  turns  their 
testimony  to  suit  his  every  notion.  But  God  will  judge  this  mode  of 
combat! 

t  To  be  sure,  the  St.  Louis  reformers  —  the  most  humble  men  on 
earth  —  have  long  ago  decided  that  all  our  Lutheran  fathers  with  all  their 
arguments  against  the  Calvinistic  denial  of  the  intuitu  fidei  were  entirely 
wide  of  the  mark,  and  that  the  Calvinists,  as  regards  this  chief  point,  agreed 
completely  with  the  Scriptures  and  with  the  Lutheran  Confession  itself 
in  opposition  to  the  whole  Lutheran  theology  and  Church.  But  we  make 
bold,  since  in  any  case  we  have  been  excommunicated  by  the  St.  Louis 
curia  (extremes  evidently  meet  here  most  strikingly!)  to  quote  the  argu- 
ments of  our  Lutheran  fathers  from  their  own  lips.     We  are  not  altogether 


436  Intuitu  Fidei. 

side  of  Christ.  Sinful  men  viewed  as  without  faith  are  outside 
of  Christ.  Therefore  sinful  men  viewed  as  without  faith  were 
not  elected.  As  Paul  accordingly  declares  Eph.  1,  4,  that  God 
elected  us  in  Christ,  so  he  declares  2  Thess.  2,  13,  that  God 
elected  us  in  faith,  since  we  could  not  be  elected  in  Christ  except 
in  view  of  faith  which  embraces  Christ.  4)  Without  faith  it 
is  impossible  to  please  God,  Heb.  11,  6.  The  elect  have  pleased 
God  from  eternity,  because  the  kingdom  is  prepared  for  them 
from  eternity,  Matt.  25,  34.  Therefore,  only  in  view  of  faith 
apprehending  Christ.  5)  Thence  flow  these  descriptions  of  the 
elect  in  the  Scriptures,  1  Tim.  1,  16:  Christ  did  shew  forth  (says 
Paul)  all  longsufifering  in  me  for  a  pattern  to  them  which  should 
hereafter  believe  on  Him  to  life  everlasting.  James  2,  5:  God 
hath  chosen  the  poor  of  this  world  rich  in  faith.  Tit.  1,  1:  The 
faith  of  God's  elect."     (§   162.) 

"We  say  the  impelling  cause  of  election  is  Christ's  merit 
embraced  by  faith.  The  sense  is  this:  God  did  not  at  all  elect 
some  through  an  unconditional  grace  unto  eternal  life  and  reject 
others  through  an  unconditional  hatred  unto  eternal  death.  Nor 
did  He  elect  some  unto  life  because  of  their  own  merit;  on  the 
contrary,  in  His  counsel  of  election  He  took  into  consideration 
only  and  solely  the  perfect  and  sufficient  merit  of  His  Son. 
By  this  He  allowed  Himself  to  be  moved  to  elect  some  unto 
eternal  life,  namely  those  all  and  those  alone  of  whom  He  fore- 
saw that  they  would  apprehend  Christ's  merit  by  faith  and  per- 
severe in  this  faith  till  the  end  of  life.  Those,  however,  of  whom 
He  foresaw  that  they  would  not  accept  this  merit,  but  would 
remain  in  impenitence  and  unbelief  till  the  end  of  life.  He  rejected 
unto  death.  For  the  merit  of  Christ  comes  into  consideration 
in  the  decree  of  election  not  merely  in  respect  to  its  acquisition, 
in  which  regard  it  extends  to  all  men,  but  also  in  respect  to  its 
appropriation,  in  so  far  as  it  is  apprehended  by  true  and  steadfast 
faith.  From  this  it  is  clear  that  the  inner  impelling  cause  of 
election  is  not  Christ's  merit  in  and  for  itself,  or  as  considered 

alone  with  our  weapons  on  the  field  of  battle.  It  is  an  old  truth  we  are 
defending  with  old  weapons  against  new  foes  and  traitors  in  the  Lutheran 
camp.  It  may  be  a  great  comfort  for  our  opponents  to  operate  against  our 
fathers  with  the  ostensibly  reformatory  cry:  "Fathers!  fathers!  — •  Away 
with  the  fathers!"  Nevertheless,  it  is  also  a  comfort  for  us,  and  that  in 
no  small  measure,  to  battle  beneath  the  shadow  of  our  Lutheran  fathers 
against  this  new  Calvinism.  There  is  here  also  a  Lutheran  understanding 
of  Scripture. 


Justus  Feuerborn.  437 

without  the  appropriation,  but  the  merit  of  Christ  as  apprehended 
by  faith."     (Disp.  Isag.  p.  711.) 

"Nothing  can  be  named  as  having  been  regarded  by  God 
in  His  eternal  decree  of  election  save  Christ  embraced  by  faith;- 
or,  which  is  the  same,  faith  apprehending  Christ.  God  did  not 
regard  our  works,  nor  our  worthiness,  nor  the  use  of  the  free 
wiU,  but  only  the  merit  of  Christ.  Since  this,  however,  is  im- 
puted to  no  one  without  faith,  it  is  said  that  He  regarded  faith, 
and  that  He  did  this  from  eternity,  since  He  foreknew  which 
would  believe  and  which  would  remain  in  unbelief."     (P.  721.) 

"The  good  pleasure  of  the  will  of  God,  according  to  which 
■election  took  place,  does  not  exclude  the  view  of  faith,  because 
it  does  not  exclude  Christ.  Because  Christ  does  not  become  ours 
except  through  faith,  therefore  the  consideration  of  faith  is  a 
•constituent  part  of  election."     (P.  725.) 

"To  teach  that  the  view  of  faith  is  a  constituent  part  of  the 
■decree  of  election  is  not  Pelagian,  for  the  Pelagians  taught  that 
•election  took  place  according  to  foreseen  faith  as  a  certain  merit 
and  as  a  work  of  the  natural  powers  of  free  will,  in  which  sense 
our  pious  fathers,  when  disputing  with  Pelagians,  justly  denied 
that  election  took  place  for  the  sake  of  faith  and  from  faith. 

But  we  teach  that  faith  is  a  gracious  gift  of  God,  and  not  a 
merit,  but  a  means  through  which  we  apprehend  Christ's  merit 
for  whose  sake  election  took  place ;_  and  that  thus  faith  is  a  part 
of  the  order  which  God  established  in  election.  If  it  were 
Pelagian  to  put  faith  in  relation  to  election  in  this  sense,  it  would 
have  to  be  Pelagian  also  to  say  that  we  are  justified  by  faith." 
<P.  725.) 

JUSTUS  FEUERBORN. 

Justus  Feuerborn*  writes:  "These  self-contradicting  peo- 
ple (the  Reformed  of  Cassel)  admit  that  the  decree  of  eternal 
•election  is  not  absolute  consequenter  et  ratione  executionis  (sub- 
sequently and  in  respect  to  its  execution)  in  view  of  the  means 
through  which  it  is  brought  about  and  worked  out  in  the  elect, 

*  Born  1587  at  Hevorden  in  Westphalia;  he  studied  Law  at  first,  then 
Theology  in  Stadthagfen  and  in  Giessen;  was  made  professor  at  Giessen 
and  at  Marburg.  Died  1656.  The  'Thorough  Elaboration"  is  probably 
the  finest  work  ever  written  against  Calvinism  and  deserved  the  general 
acknowledgement  it  received.  Jena,  Leipzig,  and  Wittenberg  published 
their  approbation  of  the  work. 


438  hituitu  Fidei. 

(As  also  Theoph.  Neuberger,  the  present  court-preacher  at  Cassel, 
writes  in  his  'Golden  Treasure  of  Paul,'  p.  31:  'Predestination  is 
by  no  means  a  mere  simple  decree  of  God,  as  though  He  had 
simply  willed  to  save  us  or  decreed  to  save  us  without  Christ,, 
without  the  Word  and  Sacrament,  without  repentance  and  faith. 
For  just  as  God  decreed  the  end,  namely  to  save  men,  so  also 
He  appointed  the  means  whereby  we  can  obtain  such  salvation.' 
So  far  Neuberger.)  Although,  we  say,  our  opponents  admit  this,, 
which  is  the  point  of  controversy,  they  nevertheless  teach  that 
the  decree  of  election  is  absolute  antecedenter  (antecedently),  in 
and  for  itself;  and  in  this  view  of  it  excludes  the  merit  of  our  Lord 
Christ,  apprehended  steadfastly  and  perseveringly  by  the  elect  in 
true  faith,  through  divine  enlightenment,  according  to  the  fore- 
knowledge of  God;  and  excludes  it  so  completely  that  they  say 
the  cause,  why  God  did  not  elect  and  ordain  all  unto  eternal  life 
but  only  a  few,  these,  those,  in  preference  to  others,  is  nothing  but 
the  divine  beneplacitum  and  good  pleasure.  And  this  is  the  point 
of  controversy  for  both  sides."  ("Thorough  Refutation  of  the 
Darmstsetter,  p.  12.*) 

"Although  on  our  side  the  expression  prevails  somewhat, 
that  faith  is  a  cause  of  divine  election,f  it  is  never  understood  of 
a  meritorious  or  impelling  cause  or  of  a  cause  originating  wholly 
or  in  part  from  the  powers  of  our  depraved  nature  (which  is  alto- 
gether dead  in  sins  prior  to  regeneration),  but  only  of  a  causa 
instrumentalis,  of  an  instrumental  cause,  which  God  works  in 
us  through  grace  (to  whom  alone,  and  not  to  us,  honor  is  due). 
Although  Dr.  Crocius  bears  witness  that  we  do  not  here  under- 
stand an  impelling  and  meritorious  cause,  yet  the  present  court- 
preacher  of  Cassel,  Neuberger,  misinterprets  our  meaning,  as 
though  we  (whom  he  does  not  name  directly,  but  only  hints  at) 
held  that  God  elected  us  unto  eternal  life  for  the  sake  of  our  fore- 
seen faith,  and  that  He  was  thereby  moved  and  induced  to  elect 
us.  This  is  far  from  our  thought,  for  we  consider  faith  only  as 
an  organon  apprehensivum,  a  means  for  apprehending,  both  in 

*  In  the  margin  we  read:  "Those  of  lower  Hessia  (Reformed)  and 
their  adherents  have  not  yet  expressed  themselves  regarding  the  mere 
divine  decree  in  the  eternal  election  and  reprobation  of  men  so  that  we 
could  be  satisfied,  but  at  times  hide  the  real  thought  of  their  hearts." 
Whom  does  this  strike? 

t  In  the  margin:  "In  which  sense  faith  is  considered  and  termed  a 
cause  of  divine  predestination."  —  Calvin  and  Missouri  of  course  reply  irk 
short:    In  none  whatever! 


JiisUis  Feuerborn.  439 

the  article  concerning  the  gracious  justification  and  salvation  of 
a  repentant  sinner  before  God,  and  in  the  article  concerning  pre- 
destination. But  Dr.  Crocius,  on  the  other  hand,  teaches  in  the 
place  referred  to  that  the  divine  predestination  is  absolutely  free, 
exempt,  and  separate  from  any  instrumental  cause.  And  yet  he 
will  not  wholly  admit  true,  persevering  faith,  which  God  foresaw 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  determined  to  give  us 
and  did  in  time  actually  give  us  in  pure  divine  mercy,  for  the  sake 
of  the  precious  merit  of  Jesus  Christ,  through  the  divine  Word 
and  Sacram.ents,  is  a  meritorious  cause  of  divine  predestination. 
Him,  as  also  his  companions  in  the  faith,  we  contradict  justly  and 
teach  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  that  we  are  elected  unto  eternal 
life  through  faith  as  an  instrumental  cause,  according  to  the  di- 
vine prescience,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  And  this 
we  do  not  understand  as  though  our  Lord  God  had  used  our 
faith  as  a  tool  and  instrument,  quo  ipse  actum  electionis  aeterna 
produxerit  et  ediderit,  with  which  He  produced,  worked  out  and 
brought  about  our  eternal  election.  For  it  is  not  for  naught  that 
divine  election  is  an  inner  divine  act  and  work  requiring  no  out- 
ward instrument.  Just  as  our  Lord  God  does  not  for  Himself 
and  on  His  part  need  to  produce  and  cause  ipsum  justificationis 
et  salvationis  actum,  justification  and  salvation  by  an  outward 
instrument.  How  is  faith  a  causa  instrumentalis  and  an  instru- 
ment of  divine  election  unto  eternal  life?  This  will  appear  clearly 
from  the  following.  In  divine  election  we  dare  not  tear  the  per- 
sons from  the  means,  nor  these  from  those,  but  we  must  carefully 
take  them  together.  The  persons  are:  God  (Father,  Son, 
namely  theanthropos,  our  Mediator  and  Redeemer  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit),  who  elected  us  from  eternity  unto  salvation; 
and  then  the  elect.  The  means  on  God's  part  for  offering  and 
bestowing  are,  in  God's  foreknowledge  and  appointment,  His 
Holy  Word,  written,  preached,  and  heard,  and  the  Sacraments 
as  used,  through  which  He  determined  to  ofifer  and  bestow  upon 
us,  and  does  in  time  offer  and  bestow  on  us.  His  grace  and  the 
heavenly  gifts  and  treasures  obtained  for  us  through  Christ's 
merit.  The  means  on  our  part,  on  the  part  of  the  elect,  for  ap- 
prehending and  appropriating,  by  which  through  divine  enlight- 
enment we  apprehend  and  appropriate  the  grace  of  God  and  the 
merit  of  Christ,  is,  also  according  to  God's  provision,  faith  given 
us  through  pure  divine  grace.  When  now  we  consider  in  election 
God,  the  One  who  elects,  His  electing  grace,  Christ's  merit,  earn- 


440  Intuitu  Fidei. 

ing  for  us  God's  election  or  that  we  are  elected  unto  eternal  life, 
and  the  Word  and  Sacraments,  then  our  faith  is  not  the  instru- 
ment whereby  God  made  His  decree,  or  brought  forth  His  grace, 
or  whereby  Christ  in  actum  deducerit  and  worked  out  His  merit 
and  brought  to  light  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments  of  God  and 
bestowed  them  upon  us.  But  now  we  consider  that  God  the 
Lord  elects  a  few  men  unto  eternal  life,  in  pure  grace  indeed,  yet 
not  outside  of  and  without  Christ,  but  only  in  Christ,  the  Media- 
tor, Redeemer,  and  Savior  of  the  whole  world.  And  we  continue 
to  consider  that  true  faith  alone,  and  nothing  else,  is  the  sole 
means  and  as  it  were  the  sole  spiritual  hand,  with  which  on  our 
part  we  apprehend  the  divine  grace  and  the  obedience  and  merit 
of  the  Lord  Christ  and  apply  and  appropriate  it  and  make  it  our 
own,  thus  being  embodied  in  Christ.  (In  this  divine  grace  and 
for  the  sake  of  the  obedience  and  merit  of  Christ,  which  earned 
election  for  us,  we  are  ordained  and  chosen  unto  eternal  life;  and 
in  the  divine  Word  and  Sacraments,  which  God  graciously  ap- 
pointed for  our  conversion,  and  through  the  divine  mercy,  and 
accordingly  not  at  all  through  our  own  natural  powers,  faith  ap- 
prehends God's  grace  and  Christ's  obedience  and  merit.'>  There- 
fore, considering  all  this,  we  are  right  in  saying  that  our  true, 
persevering  faith,  which  God  before  the  foundation  of  the  world 
determined  to  grant  us,  and  which  He  foresaw,  and  which  He 
did  in  time  grant  and  preserve  in  us  through  the  divine  Word 
and  Sacraments  according  to  the  divine  order — we  are  right  in 
saying,  this  faith  is  an  organum  or  instrumentum  of  predestina- 
tion. And  through  it  we  are  made  partakers  of  the  elective  grace 
of  God  and  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  for  the  sake  of  which  we  are 
elected,  in  and  through  the  Word  of  God  and  the  Sacraments; 
and  thus  we  are  elected  of  God  unto  salvation  from  the  begin- 
ning in  sanctilication  of  the  Spirit  and  in  (and  by  no  means  out- 
side of  or  without)  belief  of  the  truth,  2  Thess.  2,  13,  .  .  .  ac- 
cording to  God's  foreknowledge,  Rom.  8,  29;  11,  2;  1  Peter  1, 
1-2.*     Just  as  we  are  justified  through  faithf  and  saved  in  time 

*  The  last  five  sentences  are  one  grand  sentence  in  Feuerborn's  Ger- 
man. No  man  on  earth  can  translate  them  as  one  intelligible  sentence  in 
English.  In  fact,  this  is  the  severest  sentence  we  have  met  in  the  entire 
translation.  We  have  been  satisfied  to  render  the  sense  in  English,  with- 
out attempting  any  elegance  or  smoothness  in  form.  —  R.  C.  H.  Lenski. 

t  How  remarkable  that  these  Lutheran  fathers  persist  in  drawing  a 
parallel  between  election  unto  salvation  and  justification  as  far  as  the 
relation  of  faith  to  both  is  concerned!     If  only  they  had  kept  their  wisdom 


Nicolas  Hunnius.  441 

while  we  live  in  this  world,  Hab.  2,  4;  Gal.  2,  10;  Phil.  3.  9.  .  .  . 
Inasmuch  as  God  elected  us  unto  eternal  salvation,  not  outside 
of  or  without,  but  in  Christ  (and  in  Him  not  as  rejected  by  per- 
sistent unbelief,  but  as  embraced  by  steadfast  faith  through  di- 
vine enlightenment  and  preservation),  and  yet  in  faith  (which 
God  foresaw  from  eternity)  in  Christ,  who  also  was  foreordained 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  1  Peter  1,  20.  Since  now  we 
have  so  often  and  frequently  explained  ourselves  thoroughly  and 
correctly  on  this  matter,  and  have  firmly  refuted  the  accusation, 
that  we  have  been  guilty  at  least  of  the  error  of  Semi-Pelagianism 
and  a  half-Pelagianism,  it  would  certainly  be  time  now  for  our 
opponents  to  turn  and  repent  and  to  dispel  and  drive  away  their 
■darkness  by  the  clear  beams  of  the  brightly  shining  truth." 
(Page  22-24.*) 

NICOLAS  HUNNIUS. 

Nicolas  Hunniusf  writes  in  his  renowned  "Dogmatics"  or 
"Glaubenshere":  "We  accordingly  see  in  this  king  and  in  this 
master  of  the  house  (Matt.  22;    Luke  14,  16)  a  twofold  will,  1) 

•to  themselves,  until  the  reformers  of  St.  Louis  let  their  light  shine  in  this 
enlightened  century  to  the  exceeding  delight  of  the  faithful  parrot-choir! 

*  As  then,  so  now.  Calvinists  hardened  their  hearts  in  spite  of  it  all. 
Missouri  does  the  same,  wipes  its  mouth  and  raves  on  with  its  true  an- 
cestors: "Say  we  not  well  that  thou  art  a  Samaritan  and  hast  a  devil?" 
See  the  May  number  of  "L.  u.  W.",  p.  185.  Mr.  F.  P.  certainly  does  not 
need  to  paint  the  devil  on  the  wall.  Missouri  complains  with  evident  in- 
justice, when  it  whines  and  caterwauls  »s  often  as  it  is  reminded  that  its 
doctrine,  as  far  as  historic  Lutheranism  is  concerned,  is  Calvinizing  both 
thetically  and  antithetically.  What  our  theologians  considered  a  funda- 
mental article  (election  intuitu  fidei)  Missouri  together  with  the  Calvinists 
rejects  as  false  doctrine,  synergistic,  Semi-Pelagian,  rationalizing,  etc., 
and  fairly  plunders  the  Calvinistic  arsenal  to  secure  weapons  against  Lu- 
therans. But  it  will  not  escape  its  just  judgment.  When  the  snows  melt, 
it  will  appear! 

t  A  son  of  the  older  yEgidius  Hunnius,  who  together  with  his  col- 
leagues Rhoding  and  Arcularius  signed  the  F.  C.  in  Marburg  in  1577,  and 
who  was  the  most  important  theologian  in  the  Lutheran  Church  for  20 
years  in  the  time  of  the  F.  C.  Nicolas  was  born  at  Marburg  in  1585; 
studied  at  Wittenberg;  was  made  Magister  in  1604  and  professor  of  the- 
ology in  Wittenberg  in  1617.  In  1855  Dr.  Walther  in  his  "Lutheran  The- 
ological Library  for  Pastors"  ("L.  u.  W.",  vol.  1,  p.  294  and  341)  recom- 
mends J.  Gerhard's  Loci  and  J.  W.  Baler's  Compendium  as  Latin,  and 
N.  Hunnius'  "Glaubenslehre",  as  a  German  representative  of  orthodox 
Lutheran  dogmatics.     These  three  were  the  only  ones  named!     At  that 


44:^  Intuitu  Fidei. 

a  will  of  grace  and  joy,  according  to  which  they  desire  that  it 
may  be  well  with  their  invited  guests,  and  that  these  may  par- 
take of  their  blessings  with  joy;  2)  a  will  of  judgment,  and 
according  to  this  they  desire  that  their  invited  guest  because  of 
great  ingratitude  and  contempt  may  not  partake  of  their  blessings 
nor  in  reality  experience  their  grace  and  kindness.  These  two 
wills  are  not  in  the  least  contrary  to  one  another,  although  the 
one  would  grant  the  feast  to  the  guests,  and  the  other  would  not 
grant  it.  Similarly,  therefore,  our  Lord  God  also  has  two  wills; 
one  of  which  is  the  will  of  grace,  which  the  church-fathers  have 
called  the  antecedent  will,  because  it  does  not  regard  man's  piety 
or  wickedness,  thankfulness  or  unthankfulness,  obedience  or  dis- 
obedience, but  notwithstanding  this  offers  grace  and  salvation 
to  all  without  distinction.  The  other  is  the  will  of  judgment, 
which  the  church-fathers  have  called  subsequent,  or  the  v.'ill  that 
follows,  because  it  follows  upon  the  conduct  of  men  toward  the 
kind  and  gracious  offer  of  God,  so  that  since  they  have  rejected 
and  despised  this  offer,  it  in  turn  meets  them  with  merited  dis- 
favor and  severe  condemnation  and  casts  them  away.  As  God, 
therefore,  according  to  His  will  of  grace,  desires  the  welfare  of 
all  men,  so,  according  to  His  will  of  judgment.  He  desires  that 
those  alone  shall  obtain  everlasting  salvation  who  have  accepted 
His  proffered  grace,  but  that  those  who  reject  it  shall  not  enjoy 
this  grace.  God  proceeds  in  this  matter  like  a  pious  godly  gov- 
ernment, which  would  desire  nothing  more  than  that  it  may  be 
well  with  all  its  citizens;  to  this  end  it  admonishes  them  with 
all  earnestness  and  kindness,  and  even  pleads  with  them,  that 
they  may  consider  their  own  welfare  and  conduct  themselves 
so  that  their  wishes  may  be  fulfilled.  But  if  this  kindness  is 
rejected,  if  the  citizen  will  not  listen  to  the  admonition  and 
pleading  of  his  government,  if  he  derides  it  and  wickedly  trans- 
gresses its  will  and  command,  then  this  will  of  grace  ends  en- 


time,  however,  nothing  was  said,  not  even  the  slightest  "grain"  was  men- 
tioned, to  the  effect  that  these  very  three  dogmaticians  had  also  "deviated 
from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Symbol"  in  their  doctrine  of  election  —  or 
that  they  "attempted  to  explain  the  mystery  of  election  and  to  make  it 
plausible  to  reason"  —  or  that  they  had  introduced  a  "synergistic  Pelagian 
doctrine  of  predestination."  And  yet  how  necessary  it  would  have  been 
in  this  article  which  concerns  the  very  foundation  of  salvation!  But  at 
that  time  the  fathers  and  their  writings  were  always  "acknowledged  as 
orthodox"  etc.;  for  Dr.  Walther  could  so  (and  only  so)  make  such  ex- 
tensive use  of  them  against  his  opponents  at  that  time!  ! 


Nicolas  Hunnius.  443 

tirely,  and  there  follows  the  will  of  judgment,  according  to  which 
the  government  desires  that  it  may  not  be  well  with  such  a 
disobedient  and  wicked  fellow,  but  proceeds  to  hand  him  over 
to  the  executioner  that  he  may  be  brought  from  life  unto  death. 
Therefore,  as  in  all  this  neither  the  king  and  master  of  the  house 
nor  the  government  contradict  themselves,  although  they  will 
and  do  not  will  something  according  to  a  certain  distinction; 
so  also  God  does  not  contradict  Himself,  when,  according  to 
a  certain  distinction,  He  wills  the  everlasting  salvation  of  all 
men,  and  does  not  will  the  salvation  of  some."     (P.  12:^.) 

"What  then  did  God  consider  in  predestination  and  what 
moved  Him  that  He  preferred  one  man  to  another,  elected  some 
and  did  not  elect  others?     Here  we  must  remember: 

1)  God  considered  solely  and  only  Jesus  Christ  alone  in 
predestination.  This  is  established  by  the  Scripture  testimonies 
hitherto  adduced;  Eph.  1,  4:  'He  hath  chosen  us  in  Christ'; 
Eph.  1,  5:  'He  has  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  chil- 
dren by  Jesus  Christ';  2  Tim.  1,  9:  'God  hath  saved  us  according 
to  His  own  grace  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the 
world  began';  'through  Christ  men  are  reconciled  to  God' 
(2  Cor.  5,  19);  'grace  came  by  Jesus  Christ'  (John  1,  17);  'God 
hath  made  us  accepted  in  the  Beloved,'  that  is  in  His  Son  (Eph. 
1,  6);  'neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other,  for  there  is  none 
other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men,  whereby  we  must 
be  saved,  save  in  the  name  of  Jesus'  (Acts  4,  12). 

2)  God  considered  Jesus  Christ  in  predestination,  not  in 
so  far  as  He  sufifered  for  all  men  and  made  atonement  for  their 
sin.  (For  in  this  respect  all  men  are  alike  and  there  is  no  dif- 
ference or  choice  to  be  made  between  them,  inasmuch  as  Christ 
bore  the  sins  of  all,  as  will  be  shown  hereafter.)     But 

3)  God  considered  Jesus  Christ  in  predestination,  in  so  far 
as  He  is  accepted  of  men.  For  he  to  whom  God  shows  especial 
grace,  manifesting  and  witnessing  His  complete  love,  as  having 
been  now  reconciled  indeed,  has  assuredly  received  and  accepted 
the  Lord  Christ  (who  reconciled  and  brought  him  to  grace)  as 
the  one,  through  whom  he  is  reconciled  not  only  according  to 
merit,  but  also  in  fact.  Now  predestination  is  a  work  of  God 
in  which  He  manifests  His  complete  love  toward  those  whom 
He  elects,  and  bears  them  witness  that  they  are  indeed  reconciled 
unto  Himself.  Therefore  it  follows  that  they  whom  God  elects 
have  received  and  accepted  the  Lord  Christ,  the  throne  of  grace,. 


444  hituitu  Fidei. 

The  Lord  Christ,  however,  is  accepted  on  the  part  of  men 
only  by  faith.  What  faith  is  will  be  reported  hereafter.  Now 
it  is  enough  to  know  that  it  is  the  assurance  by  which  each  one 
is  certain  for  himself  that  God  is  gracious  to  him,  has  remitted 
his  sins,  and  will  receive  him  as  an  heir  of  eternal  life,  because 
His  beloved  Son  has  in  His  own  body  borne  his  sins,  atoned 
for  them  and  so  cleansed  him  with  His  blood  that  he,  being 
reconciled  to  God,  dare  come  to  Him  in  all  confidence.  He 
who  has  such  confidence  thereby  grasps  the  divine  gracious 
promises,  together  with  the  entire  merit  of  the  Lord  Christ,  and 
makes  all  this  his  own.  This  is  faith  through  which  Christ  is 
received  into  our  hearts  and  dwells  therein,  Eph.  3,  17,  concern- 
ing which  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  11,  6,  declares:  'Without 
faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.'  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Lord  Christ  is  rejected  only  by  unbelief.  For  Paul  and  Barnabas 
declare  to  the  hardened  and  stifT-necked  Jews  at  Antioch:  Tt 
was  necessary  that  the  word  of  God  should  first  have  been  spoken 
to  you;  but  seeing  you  put  it  from  you,  and  judge  yourselves 
unworthy  of  everlasting  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles.'  Acts 
13,  46.     Accordingly, 

4)  God  considered  in  predestination  that  in  some  men  the 
Lord  Christ  dwells  with  His  merit  and  acquired  righteousness; 
and  because  they  are  thereby  completely  reconciled  unto  Him- 
self, He  elected  them  unto  eternal  life.  On  the  other  hand.  He 
considered  that  in  some  men  there  is  no  faith,  that  accordingly 
Christ  is  rejectecl  on  their  part  by  unbelief,  and  that  they,  not 
partaking  of  His  righteousness  and  merit,  still  lie  in  their  sins 
and  have  the  divine  wrath  abiding  upon  them;  consequently 
He  found  them  outside  of  Christ  and  thus  did  not  elect  them 
unto  life. 

And  this  constitutes  the  difiference  between  those  whom  God 
elects  and  those  whom  He  does  not  elect,  some  are  in  Christ, 
some  outside  of  Him,  some  believe,  others  do  not  believe;  just 
as  this  distinguished  those  who  are  saved  and  those  who  are 
damned,  John  3,  18:  'He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  is  not  con- 
demned; but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already';  John 
3,  36:  'He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life;  and 
he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of 
God  abideth  on  him.' 

5)  God  considered  in  predestination  the  faith  of  men,  so 
that  He  elects  believers  and   does  not  elect  unbelievers.     Not 


Conrad  Dietrich.  445 

as  though  faith  in  itself  bestowed  a  worthiness  on  man  which 
could  move  God  to  this  work  of  grace,  and  for  the  sake  of  which 
He  could  elect  a  man,  but  only  in  so  far  as  faith  is  the  means 
whereby  the  Lord  Christ  is  joined  to  man,  and  whereby  His 
innocence,  righteousness,  and  merit  (which,  properly  speaking, 
God  considered  in  predestination)  are  given  and  bestowed  upon 
them.  Just  as  God  justifies  and  saves  us  through  faith;  for 
He  does  not  justify  and  save  a  man  for  the  sake  of  faith  and 
on  account  of  its  worthiness,  but  through  faith,  in  so  far  as  it 
embraces  the  Lord  Christ's  merit  and  righteousness,  for  the  sake 
of  which  he  is  justified  and  saved. 

6)  God  considered  the  Lord  Christ  in  predestination,  not 
only  as  by  faith  He  dwells  in  the  hearts  of  men,  but  also  as  He 
remains  and  abides  in  them  till  their  end  and  the  time  of  their 
departure.  For,  as  salvation  is  promised  to  those  alone  who 
persevere  steadfastly  in  their  faith  till  the  end,  so  also  God 
ordained  unto  eternal  life  those  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they 
would  persevere  steadfastly  in  their  faith  till  the  end;  according 
to  the  word  of  the  Lord  Christ,  Matt.  10,  22:  'He  that  endureth 
to  the  end  shall  be  saved.'  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  fall 
away  from  saving  faith  will  receive  far  greater  damnation  than 
the  rest,  and  the  faith  they  had  for  a  time  benefits  them  nothing, 
their  latter  end  being  worse  than  the  beginning.  For  it  had 
been  better  for  them  not  to  have  known  the  way  of  righteousness, 
than,  after  they  have  known  it,  to  turn  from  the  holy  command- 
ment delivered  unto  them,  2  Peter  2,  20.  21."     (P.  131.) 


CONRAD  DIETRICH. 

Conrad  Dietrich*  writes:  "The  Scriptures  declare  explicitly 
that  election  took  place  only  in  Christ,  Eph.  1,  4;  and  we  are 
not  in  Christ  save  by  faith.  Col.  1,  33 ;  yet  all  men  have  not  faith, 
2  Thess.  3,  2;  for  true  and  steadfast  faith  is  found  only  in  the 
elect.  Tit.  1,  1.  How  then  can  election,  which  took  place  in 
Christ  through  faith,  be  ascribed  to  all  men?  —  These  same  Holy 

*  Born  1575  in  Hessia;  studied  at  Marburg  under  Arcularius,  Winkel- 
mann,  and  Hunnius;  was  made  Magister  in  1593;  since  1614  Superin- 
tendent at  Ulm,  where  he  died  in  1639.  He  was  the  author  of  the  so-called 
"Dietrich's  Catechism",  which  has  been  reprinted  by  the  Missouri  Synod 
with  additions  and  alterations  under  the  name  of  John  Conrad  Dietrich, 
a  nephew  of  our  Conrad. 


446  Intuihi  Fidei. 

Scriptures  distinguish  closely  between  the  elect  and  the  non- 
elect,  between  believers  and  non-believers,  Matt.  24,  24;  John  15, 
19;  17,  6.  9;  Rom.  9,  15.  18;  1  Cor.  1,  27;  and  only  those  are 
called  the  elect  who  obtain  salvation  and  who  believe,  Rom.  8, 
23.  30."     (Analysis  Evang.  1.     284.) 

"What  the  Gospel  offers  us  for  our  salvation  requires  faith, 
John  20,  31.  Now  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  is  offered  us  in 
the  Gospel  for  our  salvation,  through  and  for  the  sake  of  the 
merit  of  Christ  unto  eternal  Hfe,  2  Thess.  1,  11.  12.  Hence  faith 
is  here  required.  For  what  grace  of  God  is  there  without  Christ's 
merit?  There  is  none.  And  therefore  also  no  justification,  no 
bestowal  of  salvation,  no  election.  But  of  what  benefit  is  Christ's 
merit  if  it  is  not  appropriated?  Now  it  can  be  applied  to  us 
only  by  faith.  Therefore  the  Calvinists  err  in  actually  expelling 
faith  altogether  from  election,  which  they  think  is  unconditional, 
and  in  asserting  that  the  Scripture  testimonies  cited  by  us  (John 
6,  40;  2  Thess.  2,  13;  James  2,  5;  1  Cor.  1,  21)  treat  only  of 
the  execution  of  election,  which  takes  place  through  faith." 
(Cateches.  p.  457.*) 

"Whatever  God  wills  unconditionally  and  absolutely  takes 
place  unconditionally,  always,  and  in  an  unchangeable  manner. 
Ps.  115,  3;  33,  9.  Rom.  4,  17.  But  He  does  not  will  our  sal- 
vation in  this  way.  On  the  other  hand,  whatever  He  wills  in 
a  definite  way  and  with  a  certain  condition  does  not  take  place 
unless  the  condition  is  fulfilled.  Thus  God  wills  that  all  men 
may  be  saved,  but  with  the  condition  that  they  believe  through 
the  Word  and  appropriate  Christ's  merit  through  faith;  where 
this  condition  is  omitted,  neglected,  or  wrongly  applied,  the  op- 
posite takes  place  through  the  just  judgment  of  God.  —  Others 
follow  Damascenus  and  distinguish  between  the  antecedent  will, 
according  to  which  God  desires  that  all  men  without  exception 
may  be  saved  through  faith  in  Christ  as  offered  in  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel,  and  the  subsequent  will,  according  to  which  He 
saves  only  those  who  believe  in  Christ  and  justly  damns  unbe- 
lievers, John  3,  18;  6,  40;  Mark  16,  16.  The  antecedent  will 
considers  1)  the  intention  and  counsel  of  God  respecting  our 


*  And  on  this  point  Missouri  agrees  with  the  Calvinists.  The  fact, 
that  the  decree  of  election  pertains  just  to  these  persons  and  to  none  be- 
sides, they  tell  us,,  has  nothing  to  do  with  their  future  appropriation  of 
Christ's  merit,  but  depends  entirely  on  the  "secret  purpose  of  election", 
the  arcanum  libitum 


Conrad  Dietrich.  447 

salvation,  and  2)  the  order  of  causes  or  means  which  are  ap- 
pointed for  this  purpose ;  to  these  belongs  1)  the  principal  cause, 
God's  universal  love,  John  3, 16;  2)  the  meritorious  cause,  Christ's 
universal  merit,  1  John  2,  2;  3)  the  instrumental  proffering  cause, 
the  universal  vocation  through  the  Gospel,  Matt.  28,  19.  The 
subsequent  will  considers  the  application  of  these  means  to  men, 
as  this  takes  place  through  the  instrumental  receptive  cause,  faith 
which  comes  by  preaching  (Rom.  10,  17).  From  this  follows 
the  particular  election  of  those  who  believe,  and  its  opposite, 
the  result  of  neglect  and  contempt,  the  condemnation  of  unbe- 
lievers."    (P.  459.) 


We  will  not  go  beyond  the  time  of  the  subscribers  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord.  All  the  testimonies  adduced  above  were 
published  when,  as  can  be  demonstrated,  many  of  the  original 
subscribers  were  still  living  and  active.  We  make  room,  in  con- 
clusion, for  one  more  testimony,  which  is  important  since  in  its 
way  it  is  to  a  certain  degree  ofBcial.  In  1(531,  while  a  few  of  the 
F.  C.  men  were  still  alive,  the  Lfeipzig  Colloquium  took  place  be- 
tween Lutheran  and  Reformed  theologians.  On  the  Lutheran 
side  there  were  Hoe  von  Hoenegg  (b.  1580:  Superintendent  in 
Voigtland  in  1603;  Professor  at  Wittenberg  in  1604),  Heinrich 
Hoepfner  (b.  1582;  studied  under  G.  Mylius;  Professor  at  Leipzig 
since  1617),  and  Polycarp  Leyser  (the  younger,  a  son  of  the  older 
Polycarp  L.,  b.  1586  at  Wittenberg,  Professor  at  Leipzig).  Nat- 
urally one  of  the  chief  questions  in  the  discussion  was  that  of  elec- 
tion, and  especially  the  point  concerning  the  foresight  of  faith, 
or  concerning  the  election  of  believers  as  such. 

The  Reformed  theologians  (Bergius,  Crocius,  and  Neuber- 
ger)  declared:  "God  has  elected  from  eternity  in  Jesus  Christ 
from  among  the  corrupt  race  of  mankind  not  all,  but  some,  whose 
number  and  names  are  known  to  Him  alone,  whom  in  His  own 
time  He  will  enlighten  unto  faith  in  Christ,  through  the  power 
and  operation  of  His  Word  and  Spirit,  renew  and  preserve  therein 
till  the  end,  and  finally  save  through  faith.  That  He  found  or 
foresaw  no  cause,  or  occasion,  or  antecedent  means,  or  condition 
for  such  election  in  the  elect  themselves,  neither  their  good  works, 
nor  their  faith,  nor  even  the  first  salutary  incHnation,  motion,  or 
consent  unto  faith,  but  that  all  the  good  that  is  in  them  proceeds 
originally  only  from  the  pure  voluntary  grace  of  God  which  is 


448  Intuitu  Fidei. 

ordained  and  given  them  from  eternity  in  Christ  in  preference 
to  others." 

The  following  are  the  points  in  the  counter-declaration  ort 
the  part  of  the  Lutheran  theologians  (Hoe  von  Hoenegg,  Leyser^ 
Hoepfner),  pertaining  to  the  present  question:  "That  God  has 
elected  in  Christ  from  eternity  and  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world  not  all,  but  some  men  unto  eternal  salvation.  That  God 
has  elected  from  eternity  those  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  in  time 
they  would  believe  in  Christ  through  the  power  and  operation 
of  His  Word  and  Spirit,  and  would  abide  in  Him  till  their  end. 
That  in  election  God  found  no  cause  or  occasion  for  such  elec- 
tion in  the  elect  themselves,  not  even  a  first  inclination,  motion, 
or  consent  unto  faith,  but  that  all  that  is  good  in  the  elect  pro- 
ceeds originally  from  the  pure  and  voluntary  grace  of  God,  which, 
is  given  them  in  Christ  Jesus  from  eternity.  Besides  all  this  the 
theologians  of  the  Electorate  of  Saxony  declare  that  they  con- 
tinue to  consider  everything  that  is  taught  in  the  Book  of  Con-- 
cord  concerning  this  article  of  predestination  correct  and  in  har- 
mony with  the  Scriptures.  And  especially  that  God  indeed' 
elected  us  through  grace  in  Christ,  but  in  such  a  way  that  He 
foresaw  who  would  perseveringly  and  truly  believe  in  Christ; 
and  those  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would  so  believe.  He 
also  ordained  and  elected  unto  salvation  and  glory."  (Cf.  the 
work  of  Prof.  F.  W.  Stellhorn  in  the  present  volume,  p.  27,  etc. — 
R.  C.  H.  Lenski.) 


PART  IL 

DID  OUR  LUTHERAN  FATHERS  DEPART  FROM  THE  CONFESSION  BY 

TEACHING,  THAT  THE  ELECTION  OF  CERTAIN  PERSONS 

TOOK  PLACE  IN  VIEW  OF  FAITH? 


We  have  made  our  Lutheran  Fathers,  albeit  only  those  of 
the  period  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  the  time  immediately 
following,  render  their  explicit  testimony  relative  to  the  ques- 
tion, whether  the  final  election  to  salvation  takes  place  with 
or  without  regard  to  the  appropriation  of  the  merits  of  Christ 
through  faith.  We  should  be  able  to  advance  a  long  series  of 
excellent,  edifying  and  instructive  testimonies  of  the  later  teach- 
ers of  our  Church,  but  we  see  ourselves  constrained  to  break 
ofi  here  and  proceed  to  the  second  chief  question. 

We  have  formulated  the  question  on  purpose  in  its  historic 
aspect.  When  the  original  defenders  and  signers  of  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  were  living,  they  were  recpgnized  as  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Church,  and  as  such  they  defended  the  Con- 
fessions of  the  Church  against  the  Calvinists  and  Huberians. 
It  is  an  indisputable  fact,  established  beyond  all  doubt,  that 
Lutheran  theology,  through  these  representatives,  universally, 
publicly  and  freely,  took  its  stand  upon  the  doctrine,  that  the 
particular  election  of  certain  sinners  to  salvation,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  others,  depended  upon,  the  merits  of  Christ  as  appre- 
hended by  faith.  The  connecting  link  between  faith  on  the  part 
of  the  sinner  and  election  on  the  part  of  God  is  the  foreknowledge 
of  the  latter,  according  to  which  God  has  made  His  selection 
in  this  world  of  sinners  for  eternal  life.  In  consequence  of  the 
Moempelgart  colloquy  between  Jacob  Andrese  and  Beza  the 
attention  of  the  Lutherans  as  well  as  the  Reformed  was  drawn 
more  than  ever  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  It  is  unde- 
niable, that  hitherto  this  article  had  not  been  guarded  on  all 
sides  against  false  and  misleading  expressions  and  statements. 
The  most  zealous  Lutherans  of  the  time  before  the  Formula 

(449) 


450  Intuitu  Fidei. 

of  Concord  adopted  theses  in  plain  contradiction  to  the  Word 
of  God.  Even  Missouri,  which  formerly  boasted  of  having 
merely  retraced  its  steps  to  the  older  form  of  teaching,  as  regards 
predestination,  and  without  reservation  confessed  its  adher- 
ence to  the  doctrine  of  election  as  formulated  by  those  theolo- 
gians,* now  commences  to  make  surprising  concessions  in  this 
respect.  The  very  adoption  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  but 
still  more  the  controversies  conducted  in  connection  with  the 
same,  united  the  Lutheran  Church  completely  in  an  orthodox 
conception  of  the  doctrine  of  election,  especially  in  its  relation 
to  the  gracious  will  of  God  which  embraces  all  men  without  dis- 
tinction, which  is  the  same  for  all  men  from  beginning  to  end, 
and  does  not,  as  far  as  the  final  decree  to  salvation  is  concerned, 
demand  faith  in  some  and  not  in  others.  Between  Lutheranism 
and  Calvinism  an  ever  widening  breach  manifests  itself  in  their 
respective  attitude  toward  this  article  of  faith,  a  wall  of  separa- 
tion becoming  distinct  and  strong  in  proportion  as  the  prin- 
ciples involved  are  understood.  Other  articles,  for  instance  that 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  were  relatively  placed  into  the  background 
and  the  doctrine  of  predestination  became  the  principal  point 
of  controversy  and  the  general  cynosure.  Soon  that  part 
of  the  doctrine  of  election  which  treats  of  the  relation  of  faith 
to  the  elective  decree  (intuitu  fidei,  in  view  of  faith),  became  the 
center  of  the  fiercest  contention.  The  Lutherans  contended: 
Yes,   God   has   had   faith   in   view,   in   the   election   which   took 


*  We  read,  for  instance,  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Northern  District  of 
the  Missouri  Synod  of  the  year  '86,  the  following  statement:  "It  is  a  gross 
misunderstanding  of  the  moderns  who  charge  Luther,  Heshusius,  Flacius, 
Wigand,  and  others  with  Calvinism."  Accordmg  to  this,  Hunnius  is 
falsely  accused  of  Calvinism,  though  he  teaches  an  unconditional  repro- 
bation side  by  side  with  an  absolute  election.  Very  frequently  he  says, 
especially  in  his  writings  against  the  synergists,  that  God  has  passed  by  the 
others  (the  non-elect)  with  His  grace.  In  his  "Theological  Definitions" 
he  gives  the  following  description  of  election  or  predestination:  "It  is 
the  eternal  counsel  of  God,  by  which,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
without  regard  to  merits  or  works,  solely  out  of  His  immeasurable  grace, 
He  has  elected  imto  Himself,  in  His  Son  Jesus,  a  certain  number  of  men, 
concerning  whom  He,  according  to  the  pleasure  of  His  will,  had  deter- 
mined, to  call  them  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  to  lead  them 
through  faith  to  eternal  salvation  and  glory;  and  decreed,  to  leave  the 
remaining  multitudes  in  perdition."  And  that  is  not  to  be  Calvinism! 
Alas,  that  Heshusius  does  not  stand  alone  at  that  time  with  his  consistent 
doctrine  of  election.     But  let  them  rest,  the  dead! 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  451 

place  in  Christ;  the  Reformed  said:  No,  God  has  not  had  any- 
thing in  view  but  the  pleasure  of  His  will  when  He  elected  just 
those  and  no  others  to  salvation.  The  Reformed  with  great 
zeal  assailed  the  position  of  faith  in  election,  claiming  that  this 
was  covert  Pelagianism,  while  the  latter  defended  the  position 
of  faith  as  the  central  and  germinal  point  of  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion in  distinction  from  the  Calvinistic  system  with  its  absolutism. 
Twelve  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
the  Huberian  controversy  arose.  In  his  excessive  zeal  against 
Beza  and  the  Calvinists  Huber  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  the 
universality  of  election  as  \<^\\  as  of  grace.  Of  a  divine  decree 
of  election  which  concerns  believers  alone,  and  is,  therefore,  a 
particularizing  act  of  God,  he  wanted  to  know  nothing.*  Then 
the  whole  Church  which  confessed  her  adherence  to  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  arose  as  one  man  and  gave  her  testimony  decidedly 
and  unanimously.  In  Saxony,  in  Wuertemberg,  in  Prussia,  in 
Brandenburg,  in  short  in  all  places  in  the  Lutheran  Church 
the  original  authors  and  signers  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord arise  and  say:  Election  to  salvation  in  as  far  as  it 
infallibly  predestinates  persons  to  eternal  life,  covers  the 
children  of  God  or  the  believers  in  Christ  and  has  regard 
(consideratio,  respectus)  to  the  appropriation  and  retention 
of  the  merits  of  Christ.  The  devil  —  much  less  a  St.  Louis 
sophist  —  cannot  in  the  least  change  this  mighty  historic  fact. 
At  a  time,  when  far  and  wide,  the  original  signers  of  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  are  standing  guard  by  the  thousand,  the  doc- 
trine of  election  "in  view  of  faith"  is  recognized  publicly  and  uni- 
versally as  the  genuine  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
Confessions.  The  Calvinists,  to  be  sure,  animadverted  against 
it  also  after  this.  But  among  the  Lutherans,  if  we  except  the 
Huberians,  there  is  the  utmost  unanimity  of  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures  as  well  as  of  the  Confessions.  Were  it  necessary 
to  corroborate  this  by  testimony  of  our  own  time,  we  need  only  to 
appeal  to  the  silence  of  the  St.  Louis  people,  as  profound  as  the 
grave.  For  a  year  past  they  have  viewed  with  suppressed  rage 
the  testimonies  of  the  Church  and  time  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 


*  We,  the  opponents  of  Missouri,  are  the  very  persons  who,  with  the 
opponents  of  Huber,  denied  the  election  of  believers  as  such,  and  this  as 
relentlessly  against  Ruber's  false  universalism  as  against  the  particu- 
larism of  Calvinists  and  Missourians;  and  yet  Missourians  have  accused 
us  of  being  disciples  of  Huber! 


452  Intuitu  Fidei. 

cord,  which  we  have  been  pubHshing,  but  can  not  say  a  word 
against  them,  for  otherwise  they  would  not  have  failed  to  do  so, 
"No  answer"  is,  in  this  instance,  a  very  plain  and  decisive  answer. 

Since  we,  "the  opponents,"  intend  only  to  defend  the 
doctrine  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  against  Missouri,  we  prefer 
to  give  our  second  question  a  purely  historic  aspect.  Our  doc- 
trine is  not  new,  and  no  recourse  needs  to  be  had  to  specious 
reasoning.  To  this  Missouri  itself  testifies,  as  often  as  it  accuses 
us  of  blindly  following  tlie  lathers  in  the  matter  as  well  as  in  the 
arguments  employed,  instead  of  following  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
If  Missouri  should  contend,  that  we  do  not  agree  with  the 
fathers  in  the  doctrine  of  conversion,  we  answer:  In  the  first 
place  this  is  not  true,  but  a  misapprehension  of  the  St.  Louis 
people,  as  are  many  others  of  their  asseverations;  in  the  second 
place  Missouri  itself  teaches,  that  there  is  no  need  of  harmon- 
izing the  various  articles  of  faith.  What  necessity,  therefore, 
of  dragging  the  teaching  of  the  fathers  concerning  conver- 
sion, into  the  discussion  regarding  their  teaching  concerning  pre- 
destination. We  have  not  made  it  our  object,  for  the  pres- 
ent, to  vindicate  against  Missourian  perversion  the  doctrine  of 
conversion  held  by  the  fathers,  but  their  doctrine  of  election. 
The  latter  has  been  the  subject  in  question  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  according  to  Missourian  principles  that  is  quite  a 
different  thing,  quite  a  different  article  of  faith  from  that  of 
conversion.  If  there  is  no  need,  as  the  Missourians  contend, 
of  the  doctrine  of  election  being  in  agreement  with  that  of  the 
universality  of  divine  grace,  why  do  they  emphasize  the  necessity 
of  an  agreement  of  the  doctrine  of  election  with  that  of  con- 
version and  the  human  will.  If,  therefore,  our  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion should  contain  elements  contradictory  to  the  accepted  doc- 
trine of  conversion,  it  is  not  for  Missouri  to  chide  us  for  incon- 
sistency, inasmuch  as  it  seems  to  think  that  all  articles  of  faith 
bear  the  stamp  of  divine  truth  and  origin  clearly  in  proportion 
to  their  disagreement  with  each  other. 

It  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference  to  us,  whether  our  fathers 
have  erred  and  deceived  in  this  matter,  or  not.  The  doctrinal 
question  which  concerns  us,  is  no  open  question,  nor  is  it  of  a 
subordinate  character,  but  a  mighty  question  excelling  and  vitally 
influencing  many  others:  Whether  God  has  sealed  and  guaran- 
teed to  particular  sinners  as  such  or  to  particular  believers  as  such 
eternal  life,  through  their  election.     To  conceive  a  Lutheran  or 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  453 

■orthodox  church  which  has  conducted  a  wrong-  warfare  against 
Calvinists,  already  at  the  time  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and 
has  continued  it  to  this  moment  with  unanimity  —  neither  pro- 
posing a  correct  thesis,  nor  rejecting  the  corresponding  anti- 
thesis; neither  giving  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Script- 
ures with  reference  to  this  article,  nor  properly  understanding 
her  own  Confession  of  Faith;  moreover  obscuring  and  pervert- 
ing the  analogy  of  faith  from  this  point  —  in  short  an  orthodox 
church  which  has  exceedingly  erred  and  deceived,  is  a  demand 
too  monstrous  to  meet  with  compliance  from  us.  Missouri  will 
be  compelled  to  produce  other  and  better  proofs  than  in  the 
past  to  give  the  very  least  plausibility  to  the  contention,  that 
the  fathers  have  been  deceived  and  deceiving  in  this  matter, 
and  that  the  true  light  has  not  arisen  till  now,  namely  in  St. 
Louis,  so  that  not  only  Dr.  Walther  as  self-constituted  reformer 
•of  the  first  magnitude  but  also  the  minor  reformers  outshine, 
and  place  in  the  shade  with  their  lustre,  the  whole  the- 
•ology  maintained  in  the  Lutheran  Church  since  the  time  of 
the  Fornmla  of  Concord.  No,  we  are  not  ready  to  admit  that 
the  great  warfare  of  our  Church  against  Calvinsim  has  been,  with 
respect  to  a  whole  series  of  fundamental  articles,  not  only  abor- 
tive but  even  heretical,  since,  according  to  Missouri,  the  Cal- 
vinists have  been  compelled  to  defend  divine  truth  in  this  respect, 
while  our  Lutheran  fathers  have  rejected  and  in  a  determined 
way  assailed  it,  resisting  conviction  in  spite  of  all  cogent  and 
conclusive  arguments  from  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

The  claim,  that  the  Lutheran  theologians  of  the  time  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  have  departed  from  the  Confession  in  the 
essential  particular  of  the  eternal  election  of  the  children  of  God, 
involves  a  gross  calumny.  This  is  the  case  not  because  we  impute 
inerrancy  of  the  fathers,  or  freedom  from  error  to  all  their  state- 
ments, but  because  such  a  claim  is  tantamount  to  a  charge  of 
insincerity.  For  the  assumption,  that  the  original  signers  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord,  who  have  been  adduced  as  witnesses, 
misunderstood  the  Confession  of  the  Church,  asks  us  to  believe 
an  impossibility.  They  lived  in  the  very  midst  of  the  Church 
and  knew  what  faith  was  held,  confessed  and  propagated 
by  the  Church  of  their  time.  If  they  had  made  use  of  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  merely  as  a  mask  for  their  heretical  doctrine, 
for  the  purpose  of  hiding  their  apostasy  from  the  tenets  of  the 
Church  under  the  authority  of  the  Confession,  what  a  terrible, 


454  Intuitu  Fidei. 

infamous  deed  this  would  have  been!  In  the  eyes  of  Missouri 
such  an  act  may  not  seem  so  terrible,  but  that  does  not  change 
the  truth.  It  is  and  remains  a  calumniation  of  those  godly  men 
of  the  time  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  to  impute  to  them  a 
departure  from  the  Confession  by  their  "Intuitu  Fidei  theory," 
and  a  desire  to  hypocritically  protect  their  new  doctrine  by 
the  authority  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  which  they  themselves 
had  subscribed  and  introduced  into  the  Church.  O,  what  ven- 
geance those  old,  honest  champions  of  the  truth  would  take  upon 
their  degenerate  sons  for  such  contempt,  if  the  lists  were  not 
closed  to  the  sainted  dead! 

If  we  dealt  with  opponents  who  did  not  hold  membership 
in  the  Lutheran  Church  and  lay  claim  to  the  Lutheran  name, 
it  would  behoove  us  to  defend  the  scriptural,  and  not  the  con- 
fessional, side  of  the  doctrine  of  the  fathers.  The  same  con- 
dition would  obtain,  if  the  erring  conscience  of  opponents  needed 
aid.  Neither  is  the  case.  Missouri  purports  to  be  the  very 
flower  of  Lutheranism  and  also  to  have  the  sole  right  to  the 
name.  The  question  is,  therefore,  pertinent:  Since  when  has 
your  doctrine  of  predestination  possessed  citizen  rights  in  our 
Church?  Say  you.  Since  1580?  Very  well,  let  us  examine  the 
existing  records;  let  us  ask  history:  Which  is  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  and  which  is  not?  You  can  not  deny,  that  at  least  since 
three  centuries,  since  1580,  the  doctrine  of  election  "in  view  of 
faith"  has  been  accepted  among  friends  and  foes  as  Lutheran  in 
distinction  from  the  Calvinistic  doctrine.  The  question  is:  "Does 
the  Confession  contain  another,  a  dififerent  doctrine?"  Have  our 
Lutheran  fathers  since  1580  really  without  exception  departed, 
as  far  as  this  doctrine  is  concerned,  from  the  Confession  of  the 
Church?  Or  are  not  really  you  the  innovators  who  have  departed 
from  the  doctrine  of  election,  as  transmitted  to  us,  and,  by  impli- 
cation, from  the  Scriptures  and  the  fathers?  We  venture,  there- 
fore, to  answer  this  question,  whether  the  fathers,  in  the  doctrine 
of  election,  have  departed  from  the  Confession  of  the  Lutheran 
faith.  By  that  we  vindicate,  in  the  first  place,  our  fathers,  against 
your  audacious,  shameless  insult  flung  in  the  face  especially  of 
the  original  signers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  its  defenders. 
At  the  same  time  we  vindicate  ourselves  and  our  doctrine  of 
election,  of  which  you  say,  that  we  had  learned  it  only  of 
the  fathers,  and  sustained  it  only  by  appeals  to  them.  To 
advance  from  the  Scriptures  more  and  better  proof  we  deem. 


Did  Our  Luthera^i  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  455 

in  the  present  state  of  affairs,  as  superfluous  as  to  furnish  new 
proof  of  the  scripturahiess  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Supper  over  against  the  Calvinists,  or  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
of  justification  over  against  the  Romanists.  You  know  the 
Lutheran  arguments  as  well  as  we  do,  but  you  are  not  willing  to 
accept  them,  therefore  there  is  no  help  for  you.  But  as  long 
as  you  demand  recognition  of  your  claim  to  membership  in  our 
Lutheran  Church,  your  claim  shall  be  disputed  as  relentlessly 
as  that  of  other  renegades  who  are  Lutheran  only  in  name,  but 
not  in  the  historic  acceptation  of  that  term.  Energetic  protests 
must  be  raised:  the  enemy  who  has  crept  into  the  stronghold 
by  stealth  must  be  ejected.  If  you  desire  to  found  a  new  church 
entitled,  perhaps,  "Church  of  the  Reformation"  or  still  better 
"Church  of  Missouri,"  and  to  vindicate  your  doctrines  by  appeals 
to  Scripture,  as  other  heretical  bodies  do,  we  can  not  prevent  it. 
But  we  shall  not  let  you  creep  into  the  fortress  of  our  Lutheran 
Confession  and  settle  down  in  it  with  your  typically  and  essen- 
tially Calvinistic  doctrine.  The  fort  is  ours,  because  the  Confes- 
sion, as  solemnly  received  in  1580  by  our  Church,  and  honored 
ever  since,  does  not  contain  your  doctrine  of  the  selection  of 
particular  sinners  as  such,  for  the  bestowal  of  eternal  life.  It 
teaches,  on  the  contrary,  the  doctrine,  hitherto  recognized  as 
specifically  Lutheran,  of  the  election  of  believers  in  Christ  as 
such,  or  of  election  with  regard  to  the  future  apprehension  of 
the  merits  of  Christ. 

It  behooves  us,  therefore,  to  investigate,  whether  the  orig- 
inal signers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  (and  with  them  the 
whole  later  Church  of  the  Lutheran  faith)  have,  in  the  funda- 
mental article  of  the  election  of  the  children  of  God  to  eternal 
life,  departed  from  the  Confession  of  the  Church,  as  you  Mis- 
sourians  falsely  aver,  or  whether  the  Church  has  abided  by  her 
Confession,  and  you  are  the  Calvinistic  innovators,  unfortunately 
behind  the  mask  of  our  Lutheran  Confession. 

XL 

Does  Missouri  really  contend  that  our  fathers  have  departed 
from  the  Lutheran  Confession  with  their  doctrine  of  "election  to 
salvation  in  view  of  faith"?  Is  not  the  difificulty  chiefly  in  the 
mode  of  expression,  in  the  use  of  technical  terms,  while  all 
sides  recognize,  that  the  doctrinal  substance,  though  clothed 
in  defective  and  fallacious  expression,  is  entirely  orthodox  and 


456  Intuitu  Fidei. 

in  perfect  agreement  with  the  Scriptures  as  well  as  with  the  Con- 
fessions? The  substance  of  a  doctrine  and  its  expression  are  two 
things  vastly  different.  Undoubtedly  both  should  be  correct, 
if  perfection  could  always  be  attained  in  this  mundane  sphere. 
But  when  it  occurs  that  faithful,  pious  teachers  of  the  Church 
clothe  a  scriptural  orthodox  doctrine  in  a  form  which  is  inade- 
quate and  liable  to  misinterpretation  and  abuse,  it  surely  must  be 
permissible,  to  draw  attention  to  such  infelicitous  terminology, 
and  to  remove  the  evil  by  proper  attempts  at  correction.  Who- 
ever makes  that  the  object  of  his  effort,  does  not  produce  any 
alteration  in  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  and  cannot  be  accused 
of  rejecting  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  of  teachers  admittedly 
orthodox,  since  he  objects  only  to  their  defective  mode  of 
expression. 

What,  therefore,  is  the  nature  of  the  issue  between  Missouri 
and  our  fathers  who  have  taught  the  Church  since  the  time  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord?  We  should  think  that  this  question 
answers  itself  to  the  satisfaction  of  any  one  who  has  heard  any- 
thing at  all  about  the  two  respective  doctrines.  The  whole  world 
knows  that  for  centuries  a  warfare  has  been  waged  between  our 
fathers  and  the  Calvinists  in  regard  to  predestination,  the  latter 
contending  that  God  has  elected  from  the  whole  multitude  of 
sinners  particular  persons  according  to  an  absolute  secret  pur- 
pose and  the  mere  pleasure  of  His  will;  the  former  claiming  that 
this  election  has  taken  place  according  to  the  counsels  of  His 
grace,  as  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  namely  according  to  His  fore- 
knowledge of  the  future  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  This  was  the 
chief  and  central  question  between  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism, 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  election  of  persons  to  eternal  life.  John 
Musseus  writes:  "As  regards  the  doctrine  of  election,  our  Luth- 
eran theologians  agree  with  the  greatest  unanimity,  and  teach  over 
against  Calvinists,  that  the  decree  of  election  is  not  absolute. 
On  the  contrary,  as  we  are  saved  during  the  time  of  our  life  by 
faith  (fide,  per  fidem,  ex  fide)  even  so  God  has  elected  and  or- 
dained to  eternal  life  from  eternity  'intuitu  praevisae  fidei'  in  view 
of  foreseen  faith,  all  those  who  are  justified  during  their  lifetime. 
In  this,  I  say,  all  true  theologians  on  our  side  are  agreed."  (Hist. 
Syncr.,  p.  1041.)  What  Musseus  maintains  here  as  to  the  unani- 
mity among  our  Lutheran  theologians  we  find  corroborated  in 
the  most  splendid  manner,  when  we  compare  the  writings  of  our 
fathers  against  Huber  and  against  the  Calvinists;   and  also  their 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  457 

postils,  doctrinal  books,  works  of  edification,  commentaries,  dis- 
sertations on  the  symbols  and  other  writings.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  our  Lutheran  theologians,  whatever 
difference  may  exist  in  their  mode  of  expression.  It  is  always 
apparent  that  they  understand  by  the  objects  of  election,  not  sin- 
ners as  such,  ordained  to  eternal  life  according  to  the  secret  pleas- 
ure of  God's  will,  but  they  teach  in  decided  opposition  to  such 
Calvinistic  theory  of  predestination,  that  foreseen  believers  have 
been  ordained  to  eternal  life  in  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the 
revealed  pleasure  of  the  Father's  will.  Now  comes  Missouri  and 
says: 

"It  is  false  doctrine,  that  God,  in  His  decree  of  election,  has 
had  regard  to  faith  and  that  He  has  set  apart  and  elected  from 
the  whole  multitude  of  the  lost,  in  view  of  their  foreseen  faith, 
the  particular  persons  who  are  infallibly  to  be  saved.  This  elec- 
tion, on  the  contrary,  has  taken  place  among  sinners  in  every 
respect  in  the  same  condition,  according  to  the  secret  purpose 
-and  good  pleasure  of  God,  and  is,  therefore,  a  mystery  which  can- 
not be  reconciled  with  the  universal  gracious  will  of  God,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  final  decree  of  salvation  depends  upon  faith." 
While  the  universal  gracious  will  of  God  says:  "No  sinner  with- 
out faith  can,  as  such,  be  ordained  and  elected  to  eternal  life," 
the  doctrine  of  predestination  (according  to  Missouri)  sets  forth: 
"Yea,  notwithstanding,  certain  persons  are  ordained  both  to  eter- 
nal life,  and  to  the  means  and  conditions  necessary  to  its  appre- 
hension; they  are  ordained  as  mere  sinners,  which  are  all  alike." 
Whereas  the  universal  gracious  will  of  God  decidedly  says  to  all 
sinners  without  exception:  "First  repentance  and  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus,  then  adoption,  and  the  heritage  or  ordination  to 
eternal  life";  the  Missourian  predestination  says:  "First  divine 
adoption,  the  heritage,  and  ordination  to  salvation  and  with  that 
naturally  the  ordination  unto  all  means  and  conditions  necessary 
for  the  attainment  of  tBis  salvation."  The  universal  gracious  will 
of  God  knows  nothing  of  a  particular  decree  of  salvation  respect- 
ing any  sinner,  without  regard  to  the  apprehension  of  the  merits  of 
Christ  as  such.  But  according  to  Calvinists  and  Missourians  the 
election  of  grace  is  on  the  one  hand  the  final  decisive  decree  of 
salvation,  on  the  other  it  is  entirely  independent  of  foreseen  faith 
in  Christ. 

In  short,  while  our  Lutheran  fathers  answer  the  central  ques- 
tion:    Has  election  taken  place  in  view  of  faith?  by  "yes",  but 


458  Intuitu  Fidei. 

the  Calvinists  by  "no",  the  Missourians  side  with  the  latter  in 
answering  "no".  The  contention  is,  that  election  to  salva- 
tion does  not  cover  those  whose  faith  was  foreseen,  as  such,  but 
merely  particular  sinners  as  such  in  no  way  dififering  from  others. 
There  can  be  no  greater  difference  between  yes  and  no  than  be- 
tween these  views  respectively,  inasmuch  as  Calvinists  and  Mis- 
sourians deny  positively  what  our  Lutheran  theologians  affirm 
and  these  affirm  just  as  positively  what  Calvinists  and  Semi-Cal- 
vinists  deny. 

We  should  think  now,  that  since  Missouri  has  gone  over  to 
the  enemy  as  regards  this  doctrine  "intuitu  fidei"  and,  in  the 
use  of  arguments  and  counter-arguments,  blows  the  same  horn, 
as  the  Calvinists,  it  should  have  confessed  honestly  and  openly: 
Our  Lutheran  fathers,  alas,  as  far  as  this  one  feature  is  concerned 
(which  was  considered  by  both  parties  as  of  vital  importance),, 
have  rejected  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Word  of  God  and 
defended  a  doctrine  opposed  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confes- 
sions. They  have,  alas,  in  this  central  point,  which  they  them- 
selves made  the  test  of  what  was  Lutheranism  and  what  Calvin- 
ism, departed  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  have  intro- 
duced a  doctrine  of  election  into  the  Church  which  was  entirely 
new,  a  doctrine  which  is  stigmatized  even  in  the  Confessions  as 
a  doctrine  "terrible,  not  to  be  tolerated  in  the  Church  of  God." 
The  glory,  that  our  Church  has  maintained  for  the  last  three 
centuries,  over  against  the  Calvinists,  nothing  but  the  truth  of 
God  and  of  His  Holy  Word,  we  are  constrained  to  surrender. 
Not  the  Lutherans,  but  the  Calvinists  believed,  taught,  confessed^ 
and  defended  the  truth  of  God,  as  regards  the  main  question: 
Has  God  elected  from  the  mass  of  sinners,  sinners  as  such,  to 
eternal  salvation,  according  to  the  mere  inexplicable  pleasure  of 
His  will?  Or  has  He,  according  to  His  pleasure,  as  revealed  in 
the  Gospel,  elected  and  ordained  in  Jesus  Christ,  His  Son,  all  those 
sinners,  of  whom  He  foresaw,  that  they  would  in  true  faith  appre- 
hend the  only  thing  which  avails  before  God,  namely  the  merits 
of  Christ?  This  fundamental  difference  in  viewing  the  matter 
would  make  it  appear  that  our  Lutheran  fathers  rejected  the  truth 
of  God,  as  expressed  in  the  Confession  and  defended  by  the  Cal- 
vinists, that  they  have  run  counter  to  the  pure  Gospel  and  defended 
a  fundamental  error. 

Thus  Missouri  ought  to  have  spoken  in  all  honesty,  as  regards 
the    doctrine,    the    very    substance    of    the    doctrine    which    our 


Did  Our  Luthet'an  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  459 

theologians  have  endeavored  to  maintain  and  vindicate  with 
their  "intuitu  fidei"  over  against  the  absohite  election  of  the  Cal- 
vinists.  Missouri  ought  to  have  confessed  in  all  honesty :  Not 
the  mode  of  expression  or  the  terminology  is  the  matter  in  ques- 
tion, but  quite  other  things;  for  the  detailed  amplification  and 
strenuous  defense  of  their  "intuitu  fidei"  render  it  quite  evident, 
that  our  so-called  orthodox  fathers  had  views  radically  wrong 
about  the  doctrine  of  election,  wherefore  they  also  set  up  an 
entirely  new  theory  embellished  by  Scripture  proofs  and  argu- 
mentation. Therefore,  henceforth  away  with  the  fathers.  Sex- 
agenaries de  ponte! 

If  Dr.  Walther  had  renounced  his  allegiance  to  the  fathers 
at  the  time,  when  he  dropped  his  "Samenkoerner"  [seed]  in  fertile 
soil,  thus  preparing  the  way  for  the  later  general  introduction  of  his 
predestination  doctrine,  who  knows,  what  the  situation  would  be 
to-day?  But  the  cause  that  he  advocated,  did  not  lack  the  aid  of 
shrewd  diplomacy,  even  if  it  lacked  the  element  of  truth.  For 
thirty  years  he  had  taken  his  stand  upon  the  fathers  against  the 
Iowa  Synod,  against  the  General  Synod,  the  Pennsylvanians,  the 
Ohioans  and  others.  At  that  time  no  one  dared  to  question  the 
orthodoxy  of  the  fathers,  while  he,  at  that  time,  commended  their 
writings  and  testimonies  as  interpretations  of  Scripture,  as  pure 
and  true  as  gold.  The  intention  was  not,  of  course,  to  let  the 
fathers  supersede  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  much  was  under- 
stood, but  the  object  was,  to  hear  the  old  teachers  as  the  voice 
of  the  Church,  as  often  as  a  contention  arose,  as  to  what  was 
Lutheran.*  In  1852  Dr.  Walther  wrote  in  his  preface  of  the 
work:   "The  Voice  of  our  Church  in  the  Question  of  Church  and 


*  How  times  have  changed!  Since  we,  the  opponents  of  Missouri, 
have  endeavored  to  follow  the  lines  formerly  laid  down  by  Missouri,  by 
appealing  to  those  fathers  of  the  Church  who  are  acknowledged  to  be 
orthodox  teachers  and  authentic  interpreters  of  the  Confessions,  Missouri 
has  changed  front,  refusing  to  listen  henceforth  to  our  appeals  to  the 
fathers,  denouncing  their  guidance  as  a  heretical  perversion  of  scriptural 
principle  and  a  Romanizing  tendency. 

Dear  Missouri,  we  know  where  the  shoe  pinches.  You  are  entirely 
convinced  of  the  historical  fact,  that  the  Church  which  in  1580  adopted 
the  Formula  of  Concord  also  clearly  and  emphatically  bequeathed  to 
posterity  her  definition  of  election.  This  definition  of  election,  as  given 
by  the  primitive  Church  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  her  interpretation 
of  Article  XI  are  all  but  attacked  and  rejected  by  Missouri.  For  this 
reason  sly  Missouri  must  resort  to  the  trick:  "Scripture,  only  Scripture. 
Away  with  the  fathers!"     Hinc  illae  lacrymae. 


460  Intuitu  Fidei. 

Office":  The  peculiar  circumstances,  in  which  we  are  placed, 
and  which  subject  us  to  the  necessity  of  remaining  behind  the 
mother  Church  in  her  onward  march,  are  not  without  a  com- 
pensating blessing.  These  circumstances  compel  us  more  than 
other  brethren,  to  renounce  many  of  the  blessings  of  modern 
research,  and  to  take  our  seat  so  much  more  eagerly  at  the  feet 
of  the  old  teachers,  to  seek  for  treasures  which  our  Church  has 
won  by  so  much  labor  and  battle,  and  to  keep  the  same  with 
conscientious  fidelity,  even  if  we  are  not  able  to  add  anything 
to  them.  Therefore  we  judge,  that  in  spite  of  our  poverty  in 
other  respects,  we  are  possessed  of  a  talent  with  which  we  can 
and  should  work  for  our  general  welfare." 

At  a  time,  when  such  words  were  written  about  our  old 
fathers,  it  would  not  have  been  expedient,  to  write  upon  one's 
banner:  "Scripture,  Scripture,"  and  to  make  front  against  the 
opponents  who  held  aloft,  to  one's  vexation  and  discomfiture,  the 
testimony  of  the  fathers,  for  instance  concerning  predestination, 
by  shouting:  "What  fathers,  fathers?  Do  not  come  with  your 
fathers.  Are  we  papists,  that  you  want  to  come  with  your  old 
teachers  and  perplex  us  with  their  testimonies  as  the  alleged  voice 
of  the  Church?"  O  no,  at  that  time  there  was  use  for  the  fathers; 
therefore  they  were  honored  and  their  labors  were  thoroughly 
utilized.  Where  the  simple  historic  question  was  under  discus- 
sion: What  is  Calvinistic,  what  is  papistic,  what  is  Lutheran,  the 
fathers  were  rightfully  permitted  to  speak  the  decisive  word. 
For  what  is  and  what  is  not  Lutheran  (historically  considered), 
cannot  be  determined  by  methods  of  scriptural  interpretation, 
but  by  historical  research.  Therefore,  if  the  meaning  of  the 
Lutheran  Confession  is  called  into  question  by  two  doctrines  pur- 
porting to  be  Lutheran,  though  antagonizing  each  other  like  fire 
and  water,  it  stands  to  reason,  that  besides  the  words  of  the  Con- 
fession itself,  also  the  testimonies  of  our  old  teachers,  especially 
of  the  original  authors,  signers,  and  defenders  of  each  symbol 
are  emphatically  entitled  to  consideration  and  that  every  thought- 
ful man  will  permit  them  to  decide  for  him,  what  is  the  genuine 
sense  of  a  symbol  as  an  ecclesiastic,  historical  document. 

Very  interesting  and  instructive  is  the  manner  in  which  Mis- 
souri has  settled  with  t'he  fathers  in  the  predestination  contro- 
versy. At  first  it  felt  that  it  could  not  afford  to  break  with  the 
fathers  as  regards  this  doctrine,  lest  it  should  forfeit  its  whole 
position  in  history  and  its  respectful  attitude  towards  the  fathers. 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  461 

In  the  year  1868  the  writer  found,  for  the  first  time,  occasion 
to  take  up  weapons  for  the  "intuitu  fidei."  On  page  24  of  the 
Minutes  of  the  Northern  District  of  the  year  mentioned  we  read: 
"The  question.  Why  is  it  Pelagianism  to  consider  faith  as  a 
medium,  as  long  as  the  cause  of  election  is  ascribed  not  to  faith 
in  itself  but  to  Christ  as  apprehended  by  faith?  was  answered:  By 
that  a  condition  would  be  prescribed  to  God.  Faith  is  a  con- 
necting link ;  but  if  you  teach,  that  God  has  elected  to  salvation 
in  view  of  faith,  faith  is  considered  not  as  a  connecting  link,  but 
as  a  condition.  You  may  make  your  distinctions  ever  so  subtle, 
still  a  certain  causality  is  ascribed  to  faith." 

These  declarations  perplexed  us  greatly  at  the  time,  but 
we  had  no  idea  what  sort  of  "seed"  was  thus  being  scattered 
abroad. 

In  the  year  1872  Prof.  Fritschel  attacked  us  Missourians  on 
account  of  these  utterances.  He  wrote  in  Brobst's  "Monats- 
heften"  in  January  as  follows: 

"The  doctrine  of  the  old  dogmaticians,  that  God  has  elected 
to  eternal  life  those  whose  faith  He  has  foreseen,  is  assailed  by 
the  Missouri  Synod  as  Pelagianism,  on  the  assumption  that  this 
doctrine,  in  a  manner,  however  subtle,  ascribes  a  cause  of  eternal 
salvation  to  man,  and  not  every  thing  to  the  free  grace  of  God." 
He  affirmed  further,  that  this  arraignment  of  the  pure  Lutheran 
doctrine  by  putting  it  upon  the  same  level  with  the  false  Armi- 
nian  and  Pelagian  doctrine,  was  a  rude  insult  to  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  it  would  be  a  disgrace  for  the  Missouri  Synod  that 
could  never  be  extinguished,  if  earnest  protests  were  not  raised 
against  these  aspersions  upon  our  old  dogmaticians,  etc. 

What  did  Dr.  Walther  answer?  Did  he  say,  perhaps:  "Go 
to  with  your  fathers.  Now  God  is  about  to  reform  His  Luth- 
eran Church  in  spite  of  the  fathers ;  who  tells  you  to  cry  with  Dr. 
Eck,  'Fathers,  fathers'?  The. good  fathers  have  erred  in  this  doc- 
trine, they  have  departed  from  Scripture  and  Symbol,  and  we 
Missourians  are  the  people  who  are  to  establish  order  in  this 
article  of  our  doctrine." 

O  no,  that  would  have  been  too  hazardous  a  game  at  that 
time.  Therefore  Dr.  Walther  did  not,  at  that  time,  attack  the 
doctrine  of  the  fathers  as  Pelagianism.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Synod  declared  its  adherence  to  that  doctrine,  as  the  following 
quotation  shows:  "There  is  a  great  difference  between  the  ex- 
pression:    'God  has  elected  those  of  whom  He  foresaw,  that  they 


462  Intnitic  Fidei. 

would  persevere  in  the  faith"  and  the  other:  'on  account  of  their 
faith.'  The  former  is  perfectly  correct  according  to  Rom.  8,  29,  the 
latter  is  Pelagianism.  Also  the  axiom  'not  on  account  of  but 
through  faith  are  we  elected  to  salvation,'  has  met  with  approval. 
Our  Synod,  therefore,  declares  most  emphatically,  that  the  theo- 
logians of  the  seventeenth  century  have  also,  set  forth  the  correct 
doctrine  of  predestination  and  maintained  it  against  the  Calvinists; 
only  one  exception  it  takes  to  the  presentation  of  this  doctrine; 
the  expression  'intuitu  fidei'  is  an  infelicitous  term.  Not  the 
doctrine,  but  the  terminology  of  the  dogmaticians  have  we,  in 
one  single  point,  rejected  as  inappropriate."  (Cf.  Lehre  und 
Wehre  1872,  p.  128,  etc.) 

The  doctrine  itself,  the  doctrinal  substance  and  matter  was, 
accordingly,  declared  to  be  perfectly  correct,  as  pure  as  gold,  and 
entirely  in  harmony  with  the  Scriptures  as  well  as  with  the  Symbol. 
Only  the  mode  of  expression,  the  terminology,  was  infelicitous. 
But  what  our  fathers  meant  by  this  expression  "intuitu  fidei," 
what  they  believed  and  defended  as  truth  by  this  expression,  was 
an  orthodox  sense  which  they  connected  with  an  infelicitous 
term.  This  sense  Missouri  at  that  time  purported  to  hold  fast 
as  entirely  correct,  "and  as  clearly  based  upon  the  Word  of  God 
(Rom.  8,  29),"  and  declared  its  willingness  to  defend  it  against 
the  Calvinists.  But  not  only  then,  when  the  same  doctrine 
was  said  to  have  been  believed  in  the  heart  of  the  Synod, 
was  this  distinction  made  between  the  doctrine  taught  by  the 
fathers  and  their  defective  expression,  but  even  after  the  begin- 
ning of  the  controversy.  Dr.  Walther  wrote:  "The  doctrine  of 
Luther  and  Chemnitz,  as  it  is  laid  down  in  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, we  desire  to  hold  fast  and  hold  it  fast  indeed.  .  .  .  We  are 
far  from  imputing  to  the  later  dogmaticians  a  false  doctrine  of 
predestination  (Lehre  und  Wehre,  '80-67,  (38.)  They  were  far  from 
trying  to  correct  the  pure  biblical  and  symbolical  doctrine  by 
that  doubtful  expression  'intuitu  fidei.'  On  the  contrary,  they 
hold  fast  to  it  in  all  sincerity.  .  .  .  Therefore  it  would  be  heresy 
hunting  pure  and  simple,  to  denounce  as  false  teachers  those 
theologians  whose  merits  in  developing  and  defending  the  doc- 
trine of  our  Church  are  unquestionable,  on  account  of  that  ex- 
pression which,  it  is  true,  is  liable  to  be  misunderstood."  (Page 
98.) 

Such  were  formerly  their  utterances,  although  at  the  same 
time  the  real  theses  of  the  fathers,  their  proofs  from  Scripture 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  463 

and  their  arguments  against  the  Calvinists  (albeit  without  the 
mentioning  of  names)  were  taken  up  and  denounced  as  heretical. 
But  later  their  courage  rose  and  bolder  attempts  were  made  to 
get  rid  of  the  fathers,  even  going  so  far  as  to  say:  "What  do  the 
fathers  concern  us?"  In  1882  Prof.  Stoeckhardt  wrote  already 
in  L.  u.  W.,  p.  158: 

"It  is  beyond  all  doubt  that  the  dogmaticians  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  in  some  manner,  however  indefinite,  make  elec- 
tion depend  upon  faith.  When  they  make  the  'intuitu  fidei' 
their  shibboleth;  when  they  understand  the  phrase,  that  God  has 
elected  those  whose  faith  He  has  foreseen,  in  the  same  sense; 
when  they  bring  out  the  so-called  'syllabus  praedestinarius,'* 
according  to  which  election  results  from  the  universal  gracious 
will  and  the  foreknowledge  of  faith:  they  thereby  declare  the 
dependence  of  election  upon  faith.  They  seek  to  explain  the  won- 
derful mystery  of  the  discretio  personarum  (of  the  separation  of 
persons)  and  to  make  it  plausible  to  reason.  And  herein  they 
have  departed  from  Scripture  and  Symbol  and  have  erred. 
Herein  we  do  not  agree  with  them. 

On  a  more  recent  occasion  a  sort  of  official  declaration  has 
been  made.  The  Faculty  of  the  Philadelphia  Seminary  declared 
in  an  Opinion  on  predestination:  "But  when  those  expressions 
(intuitu  fidei  and  others)  which  at  one  time  were  used  by  our  most 
trusted  theologians,  are  now  condemned,  as  though  they  were 
in  conflict  with  the  Confession  either  in  themselves  or  in  the  am- 
plification which  they  received  at  the  hands  of  the  dogmaticians 
.  .  .  we  are  constrained  ...  to  regard  this  as  a  misunderstand- 
ing of  the  historic  standpoint  of  the  Formula  of  Concord." 

Thereupon  replies  L.  u.  W.,  as  an  answer  from  the  faculty 
and  editor,  not  as  a  private  opinion  of  Prof.  Pieper:  "The  later 
theologians  find  in  the  same  passages  of  Scripture  the  intuitu  fidei ; 
they  especiall}^  understand  the  "8c  roof^i-wf  in  Rom.  8,  29,  not 
as  synonymous  with  the  'elect,'  but  interpret  the  passage  to  mean, 
'whose  faith  He  has  foreseen'  (which  was  right  as  late  as  '72  ac- 
cording to  the  judgment  of  the  Synod).  Upon  this  interpreta- 
tion thev  not  onlv  base  their  whole  doctrine  of  election  as  deter- 


*  I.  e.  the  following  three  propositions  joined  in  logical  form:  1.  The 
decree,  to  save  all  those  who  persevere  in  faith.  2.  The  foreknowledge 
who  those  believers  are.  3.  The  decree  of  particular  election,  to  save 
these  persons  in  distinction  from  the  others. 

t  Whom  He  has  foreknown. 


464  Intuitu  Fidei. 

mined  by  the  intuitu  fidei,  but  they  combat  the  interpretation  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord  as  Calvinistic  (!!)  Here  we  are  placed 
before  an  unavoidable  alternative.  We  are  compelled  to  drop 
either  the  later  dogmaticians  or  the  Confession.  The  prohibition 
involved  in  the  above  Opinion,  that  we  dare  not  assume  a  conflict 
between  the  Confession  and  the  later  theologians,  does  not  help 
us  surmount  the  difficulty.  Nor  can  the  objection  be  counte- 
nanced that  the  matter  in  question  is  a  difference  of  exegeticat 
interpretation.  The  difference  ceases  to  be  of  a  merely  exeget- 
ical  character,  when  the  'sedes  doctrinse'  involved  are  accorded 
different  interpretations.  It  is  impossible,  for  instance,  that  two 
should  agree  in  the  doctrine  of  justification  as  long  as  they  accord 
the  'sedes  doctrinae'  involved  totally  different  interpretations. 
Precisely  this  is  the  issue  between  the  'intuitu  fidei'  theologians 
and  the  Formula  of  Concord.  The  'intuitu  fidei'  gives  the  doc- 
trine of  predestination  a  unique  form,  and  in  so  far  as  the  later 
theologians  endeavor  to  give  currency  to  this  term  and  base  their 
doctrine  upon  it,  they  are  in  conflict  with  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord; but  the  same  theologians  do  not  conflict  with  the  Formula 
of  Concord  whenever  they  break  through  the  ban  of  the  'intuitu 
fidei.'  In  formulating  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  side  either  with  the  Formula  of  Concord  or  with  the  later 
theologians.  The  later  theologians  do  not,  as  a  rule,  trouble  them- 
selves much  about  the  Formula  of  Concord;  what  the  P^ormula 
of  Concord  says  will  not  fit  in  with  their  theory."  (July  number,, 
p.  245.) 

Now,  what  answer  does  Missouri  give  to  the  question, 
whether  the  later  theologians  have  departed  from  the  Formula  of 
Concord?  The  answer  depends  upon  circumstances.  Missouri 
is  shrewd  and  can  answer  now  "yes,"  now  "no,"  according  to  the 
contingencies  of  the  situation.  Is  the  trend  of  the  question: 
"How  can  you  insult  our  Church  in  this  fashion,  and  how  dare 
you  accuse  our  old  fathers  of  false  doctrine  and  apostasy  from 
the  Confession?"  Missouri  simulates  indignant  rage  and  scowls 
and  fumes:  "Who  imputes  to  these  worthy  men  false  doctrine?' 
Surely  not  we  Missourians."  But  if  the  question  is:  "Well, 
if  the  sense  so  often  and  clearly  set  forth  by  the  fathers  through 
the  expression  intuitu  fidei,  is  correct,  the  phrase  also  is  likely  to- 
comport  with  both  Scripture  and  Symbol  and  to  be  in  harmony 
with  the  Confession," — then  Missouri  turns  away  from  the  fathers- 


Did  Otir  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  465 

and  contends  that  their  doctrine  in  its  real  form  is  in  contradic- 
tion to  Scripture  and  Symbol.  Now  "yes,"  now  "no"  may  be  a 
shrewd  expedient,  but  is  it  wisdom? 

III. 

There  was  a  time,  when  even  Missouri  hesitated  to  declare 
the  doctrine  of  the  so-called  later  dogmaticians  false  and  opposed 
to  Scripture  and  Symbol.  The  mere  reproach,  that  this  had 
been  done  and  that  an  insult  had  thus  been  flung  in  the  face 
of  our  Church,  provoked  no  little  rage  in  its  camp  in  '72. 
Incensed  and  indignant  in  the  highest  degree  on  account  of  this 
grievous  charge,  it  made  the  allegation  (and  who  would  at  that 
time  not  gladly  have  believed  it  to  be  true),  that  not  the  doctrine, 
not  the  real  opinion,  not  the  matter  of  the  faith  of  our  Lutheran 
theologians  was  called  in  question,  but  that  exception  was  merely 
taken  to  the  clothing  of  this  doctrine  in  a  form  not  only  infelici- 
tous, but  even  fallacious,  so  that  their  words  really  express  some- 
thing widely  different  from  the  intended  sense.  And  this  was 
said  not  concerning  the  earlier  dogmaticians,  but  especially  con- 
cerning Hollazius,  who  is  well  known  as  one  of  the  later  dogma- 
ticians. 

Is  a  misunderstanding  possible  here?  Is  it  conceivable  that 
Missouri,  at  that  time  already,  consciously,  uncompromisingly 
and  clearly  held  to  its  present  doctrine  of  predestination,  and 
was  only  so  unfortunate  as  to  misunderstand  our  dogmaticians 
so  completely  as  to  impute  to  them  the  very  doctrine  which  they 
combated  relentlessly  and  rejected  as  a  Calvinistic  error?  A 
misunderstanding,  alas,  was  impossible.  The  matter  was  as 
plain  as  the  light  of  day.  The  issue  in  the  great  predestination 
controversy  between  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  was  the  funda- 
mental question,  whether  the  final  choice  of  sinners  to  salvation 
out  of  the  mass  of  sinners  had  been  made  according  to  a  secret 
purpose,  or  according  to  a  plan  revealed  in  the  gospel  and 
embracing  the  faithful  as  foreknown  from  eternity.  The  Cal- 
vinists contended  for  the  former  view  and  applied  their  principle 
in  earnest  by  harmonizing  their  whole  doctrine  with  their  par- 
ticularism both  as  to  the  position  and  force  given  it  in  their 
presentation  of  the  way  of  salvation.  The  Lutherans  contended 
for  the  opposite  view  and  permitted  the  evangelical  doctrine  of 
salvation  to  stand  unabridged,  unobscured  without  a  particle 
of  its  power  being  neutralized.     Our  Lutheran  theologians  of 


466  '       Intidtu  Fidei. 

that  time  did  not  dream  of  an  impossible  chasm,  of  an  insoluble 
contradiction  between  the  universal  will  of  divine  grace,  between 
the  universal  counsel  of  election,  and  the  particular  elective  decree, 
in  short  between  the  gospel  for  poor  sinners  and  the  article 
of  predestination.  On  the  contrary,  they  could  not  emphasize 
sufBciently  that  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  is,  at  the  same  time, 
the  revelation  of  eternal  predestination,  thus  bringing  into  exqui- 
site harmony  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  final  separation  unto  eternal 
life  of  all  persevering  believers,  with  the  revealed  gospel,  and  con- 
firming most  positively  the  truth  of  universal  grace.  This  posi- 
tion they  took  of  necessity,  if  they  desired  to  maintain  that  the 
election  to  eternal  life  had  as  its  objects  not  men  who  irrespective 
of  faith  were  considered  as  being  in  the  same  state  of  sin  and 
condemnation  with  the  mass  of  mankind,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
men  who  by  faith  had  apprehended  the  merits  of  Christ.  They 
let  the  law  of  cause  and  effect  stand,  but  they  reversed  its  opera- 
tion from  the  standpoint  of  Calvinism.  If  our  Lutheran  fathers 
had  believed  with  Calvin  and  Missouri  that  God  by  His  elective 
will  had  ordained  to  eternal  life  sinners  from  the  multitude  of  their 
companions  in  the  same  condition;  and  on  the  strength  of  this 
election  to  salvation,  as  the  end,  had  foreordained  them  also  to 
faith,  as  the  means,  they  would  have  been  constrained  with  Calvin 
to  demonstrate  away  the  existence  of  universal  grace,  or  with  Mis- 
souri to  contend  for  an  impossible  chasm  between  the  two.  This 
much  is  certain,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  fathers  in  this  central  point 
is  unmistakable.  Every  man,  who  only  cursorily  considers  the 
difiference  between  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism,  finds,  as  is  exem- 
plified in  hundreds  of  writings,  that  the  Calvinstic  conception  of 
the  setting  apart  of  certain  sinners  as  such  is  combated  by  our 
Lutheran  theologians  as  a  fundamental  error,  whereas  an  election 
of  believers  in  Christ  as  such  is  most  emphatically  taught  and 
vindicated  by  them  by  argument  from  Scripture  and  Symbol. 

When  Missouri  still  frankly  and  freely  admitted  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  fathers  was  scriptural  and  orthodox,  even  though 
their  mode  of  expression  was,  at  least  in  part,  infelicitous,  this 
concession  was  made  because  it  was  instinctively  felt  to  be  a 
matter  of  far  reaching  consequence  to  charge  the  fathers  with 
a  deviation  from  Scripture  and  Symbol  in  the  article  of  predesti- 
nation. What  would  become  of  the  historical  orthodox  Lu- 
theran Church,  if,  in  this  central  point,  error,  yea  heresy,  had 
been  entertained  and  defended  against  the  Calvinists.     In  this 


Did  Our  L^dheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  467 

case  both  Churches  would  have  been  heterodox,  albeit  the  one 
a  little  less,  the  other  a  little  more,  inasmuch  as  Calvinists  had 
cast  overboard  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  and  the  Lutherans 
the  particular  elective  decree  instead  of  maintaining  both  in 
unrhymed  disharmony.  Where  the  Lutherans  were  orthodox, 
the  Calvinists  were  wrong,  but  where  these  were  right  (election 
from  the  mass  of  sinners  unto  glory  and  the  means  thereto)  the 
Lutherans  were  manifestly  wrong  (election  of  believers  as  such, 
in  foreknowledge  of  the  apprehended  merits  of  Christ).  And 
to  admit  openly  that  our  Lutheran  Church,  at  least  since  Ger- 
hard (1615),  has  been  a  church  apostate,  without  fidelity  to 
Scripture  and  Confession,  yea  has  developed  a  wrong  concep- 
tion of  election  and  defended  the  same,  in  spite  of  all  conclusive 
scriptural  proofs  —  such  things  Missouri  could  not  and  would 
not  admit,  nor  could  she  afiford  to  do  this  without  breaking  with 
all  historical  Lutheranism  as  the  palladium  of  evangelical  ortho- 
doxy. Recourse  was  therefore  had  to  the  subterfuge  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  fathers  (that  God  elected  those  whose  faith  He 
foresaw)  was  entirely  correct  according  to  Rom.  8,  29,  and 
needed  to  be  emphasized  and  defended  against  the  Calvinists 
to  this  day.  The  question  under  discussion  was  admitted  to 
be  the  subordinate  one,  whether  the  fathers  had  always  chosen 
the  best  phraseology,  the  correct  and  most  fitting  mode  of  expres- 
sion. Thanks  to  Missouri  to-day  yet  for  this  most  important 
concession!  "Out  of  thine  own  mouth  thou  shalt  be  judged." 
Thou  mayest  boast  of  thy  proud  reformatory  achievements,  and 
with  a  contemptuous  side  glance  at  our  dear  fathers  charge  them 
as  "Intuitu  fidei  theologians"  with  departure  from  Scripture  and 
Symbol,  with  a  doctrine  wholly  influenced  by  the  "intuitu  fidei," 
so  that  its  antagonism  to  Scripture  and  Symbol,  resulting  from 
its  novel  form,  compelled  one  to  go  either  to  the  right  or  to  the 
left  —  thy  testimony  which  did  praise  the  fathers  as  true  and 
faithful  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confessions,  especially  also  in 
this  point,  now  condemns  thee  in  the  eyes  of  all  fair  minded 
men  and  will  condemn  thee  even  more  relentlessly  at  the  throne 
of  the  Judge  of  the  vvorld.  But  in  this  historical  question  we 
are  concerned  not  so  much  with  the  honor  of  the  later  Lutheran 
Theology  and  Church,  although  also  from  this  point  of  view 
the  question  is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  every  Lutheran 
to  whom  his  Church  is  dear.  The  chief  question  is:  When 
has  there  been  a  Lutheran  Theology  and  Church  that  had  not 


468  Intuitu  Fidei. 

understood  the  eleventh  article  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
essentially  in  the  same  manner  as  the  so-called  later  dogma- 
ticians?  Where  are  we  to  seek  the  Lutheran  Church  and  school 
of  theology  that  has  accepted  the  Formula  of  Concord  in  the 
Missourian  sense?  When  and  where  has  there  been  such  a 
Lutheran  Church?  In  Saxony,  or  in  Mecklenburg,  in  Bruns- 
wick, Wuertemberg,  Hessia,  Brandenburg?  Or  was  such  a  defi- 
nition of  elective  grace  propounded  at  one  of  the  universities, 
perhaps  Wittenberg,  or  Leipsic,  or  Jena,  at  the  time  when  the 
original  signers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  one  after  the  other 
interpreted  and  defended  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  election  both 
against  the  Calvinists  and  against  Huber  according  to  Scripture 
and  Symbol? 

The  "correct  understanding"  of  a  Symbol  of  the  Church  is 
surely  a  queer  thing,  if  the  very  Church  and  theology  which  has 
examined  the  Symbol  on  all  sides  with  the  greatest  thoroughness, 
has  balanced  it  according  to  thesis  and  antithesis,  and  has  accepted 
it  with  universal  gladness,  should  have  had  no  idea  of  the  correct 
interpretation  of  the  same  and  even  combated  the  right  interpre- 
tation as  false  doctrine  through  numerous  utterances  of  her 
leaders.  What  a  queer  phenomenon!  What  sort  of  a  Church, 
what  sort  of  theologians  were  they  who  professed  adherence 
to  the  eleventh  article  without  comprehending  in  the  least  its 
most  fundamental  thought  —  yea  who  rejected  the  definition 
of  election  alleged  to  be  contained  in  the  Confession  and  defended 
with  the  utmost  vigor  - — •  a  definition  branded  in  the  Confession 
itself  as  horrible?  How  do  we  feel,  when  we  try  to  picture 
to  ourselves  this  marvelous  condition  of  things  according  to  the 
contention  of  Missouri?  What  insult  to  our  Church!  What 
calumniation  of  her  good  name!  It  is  possible  that  Missouri 
with  her  present  strong  appeals  to  Scripture  has  intentions,  as 
yet,  not  revealed.  Perhaps  we  behold  iiere  for  a  second  time 
a  judicious  planting  of  "grains  of  seed,"  in  order  to  secure,  in 
time  to  come,  should  necessity  arise,  riddance  from  the  Con- 
fession altogether  as  nothing  but  "human  doctrine."  Missouri's 
practice  in  the  past  with  its  "grains  of  seed"  does  not  ren- 
der this  impossible.  At  all  events  we  dare  not  trust  these  much 
lauded  "grains  of  seed."  The  situation  has  finally  become  very 
precarious  for  the  Missourian  standpoint  by  reason  of  the  tes- 
timony of  the  fathers  adduced  en  masse.  Facts  are  stubborn  things! 
They  cannot  be  gotten  rid  of  by  silence,  nor  by  demonstrations. 


Did  Otir  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  469 

nor  by  sophistry  —  what  remains  to  be  done?  If  only  these  orig- 
inal signers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  had  kept  to  themselves 
their  interpretation  of  the  scriptural  and  symbolical  doctrine  of 
election  so  that  only  from  the  time  of  Gerhard  on  (about  thirty 
years  after  the  acceptance  of  the  Formula  of  Concord)  the  Luth- 
eran dogmaticians  would  have  rendered  themselves  open  to  the 
charge  of  departure  from  the  Symbol.  Then  there  would  be,  at 
least,  a  show  of  defence.  But,  the  whole  army  of  the  original  au- 
thors, signers  and  representatives  of  the  Symbol  arise  and  say  as 
one  man:  Thus  and  not  otherwise  the  eleventh  article  is  to  be 
understood;  this  and  nothing  else  is  the  faith,  doctrine  and  con- 
fession of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  article  over  against  Calvin 
and  Huber,  Pelagius  and  pope.  Let  us  read  their  testimonies 
and  compare  them  with  what  Missouri  purports  to  find  in  the 
Confession!  With  one  voice  they  all  say  from  North  to  South, 
from  East  to  West:  Particular  election  as  taught  in  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  is  to  be  conceived  as  having  for  its  objects 
believers  as  such,  not  "certain  persons"  or  "certain  sinners" 
singled  out  from  the  human  millions  —  all  alike  languishing  in 
the  same  ruin.  This  item  was  discussed  repeatedly  at  the  time 
of  the  composition  and  acceptance  of  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
partly  on  account  of  the  Calvinists,  partly  on  account  of  the 
Huberians  before  Huber  who  in  their  opposition  to  the  uncon- 
ditional election  of  the  Calvinists  left  the  golden  mean  and  advo- 
cated a  universal  election  theory. 

As  a  case  in  point,  we  find  Jacob  Andreae,  (together  with 
Chemnitz,  the  chief  author  of  the  Formula  of  Concord)  writing 
to  the  elector  of  Saxony  in  1577  already,  at  the  time  when  the 
discussions  concerning  the  Symbol  were  still  in  progress:  "That 
God  has  elected  all  men  to  eternal  life,  is  not  true.  For  though 
Qod  Vv^ills,  honestly,  that  all  men  should  be  saved,  the  election  of 
grace  embraces  only  those  who  repent  and  believe,  as  these  theo- 
logians have  written  in  a  correct  and  Christian  manner  and  always 
in  harmony  with  the  "Proceedings  at  Torgau."  Accordingly 
the  election  of  grace  embraces  not  all  sinners  and  ungodly  men, 
nor  some  men  considered  only  as  sinners  and  ungodly  in  com- 
mon with  other  men,  but  those  who  repent  and  believe.  And 
that  is  taught  by  the  Proceedings  at  Torgau,  meaning  the 
Formula  of  Concord.  There  it  is  written,  to  be  sure,  that 
God  has  determined,  from  eternity,  that  He  would  receive  into 
His  grace,  unto  adoption  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal  life  all 


470  InUdtu  Fidei. 

those  who  would  repent  and  beUeve,  and  that  He  would  save  no' 
one  outside  of  those  who  acknowledge  His  Son. 

This  testimony  is  strengthened  by  a  statement  of  Nik.  Sel- 
necker  in  his  record  of  the  discussions  on  the  occasion  of  the 
composition  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  He  writes :  Some  one 
said  that  predestination  is  universal,  as  far  as  its  cause  is  con- 
cerned, namely  the  will  of  God.  Answer:  Though  God  wills,  that 
all  men  should  be  converted  and  saved,  predestination  and  the  defi- 
nite promise  is_confined  to  those  who  believe  the  Word,  and 
embraces  those  who  according  to  the  established  order  of  God 
repent  of  their  sins  and  truly  believe  in  Christ.  This  is  shown 
by  the  modification  of  the  universal  promises,  for  instance:  "That 
he  may  turn  from  his  wickedness,  etc."  "And  whosoever  believ- 
eth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  etc." 

Here  it  is  explicitly  testified  by  Selnecker  that  he  and  the 
other  authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  have  understood  and 
defined  particular  election,  to  which  t.he  eleventh  article  refers, 
not  as  a  singling  out  of  certain  sinners  as  such,  but  of  the  pen- 
itent and  believers  as  such.  Who,  now,  is  right,  as  far  as  the 
genuine  understanding  of  the  Symbol  is  concerned?  Those 
authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  whose  clear  utterances 
have  been  recorded  above  —  or  the  Missouri  of  modern  reforma- 
tory tendencies  which  claims  to  have  discovered  the  genuine 
sense  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  after  exactly  three  hundred 
years? 

In  the  year  1586,  the  famous  colloquy  of  Moempelgart  took 
place  between  Beza  and  Andrese.  Beza  was  at  that  time  beyond 
question  the  most  prominent  defender  of  Calvinistic  predestina- 
rianism.  Andreae  was  second  only  to  Chemnitz,  who  died  two 
weeks  later,  in  the  respect  and  following  which  he  commanded 
in  the  Lutheran  Church.  Being  one  of  the  authors  of  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  he  was  the  real  editor  of  it  in  its  final  form. 
A  decisive  battle  was  fought  at  this  colloquy  which  was  of  the 
greatest  moment  for  all  future  time.  After  that  colloquy  the 
predestination  question  became  the  cynosure  of  Calvinists  and 
Lutherans.  Not  only  orally  was  this  doctrine  discussed,  but 
toward  the  conclusion  written  theses  were  also  exchanged, 
to  which  the  opposing  party  affixed  comments.  In  the 
nature  of  the  case  the  seriousness  of  the  call  of  grace,  the  uni- 
versality of  redemption  and  the  efficacy  of  the  call  of  grace  con- 
stituted the  gist  of  the  discussions.     But  also  the  respective  dif- 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  471 

ferences.in  the  definition  of  election  became  manifest  with  suffi- 
cient clearness,  especially  in  the  theses  of  Andrese  written  at  home 
at  leisure  and  with  due  deliberation  in  answer  to  the  theses  of 
Beza,  also  submitted  in  writing.  Andrese  says  here:  "God  has 
not  willed  absolutely,  that  all  men  should  be  saved,  for  then  all 
men  would  surely  be  saved.  For  who  would  resist  His  will? 
But  He  has  willed  the  salvation  of  the  race  with  a  will  restricted 
and  qualified  by  the  personal  relation  of  the  sinner  to  Christ. 
(Restricta  voluntate  in  Christo.)  Outside  of  this  will  no  salva- 
tion is  intended  and  offered,  but  this  will  is  proclaimed  to  all 
men  through  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  the  use  of  the 
Holy  Sacraments.  Whoever  opposes  himself  to  this  will  is  lost 
not  through  the  will  of  God,  but  through  his  own  ungodliness." 
Furthermore:  "Election  is  not  defined  as  an  absolute  decree 
of  God  but  as  a  decree  in  Christ,  in  accordance  with  which  all 
men  are  called  to  repentance.  Therefore  no  one  should  exclude 
himself  from  the  number  of  the  elect,  but  speak  with  Augustine: 
"If  thou  art  not  predestinated,  do  thy  part  in  order  to  be  predes- 
tined." The  following  is  of  special  importance:  Beza  had 
laid  down  the  thesis:  "It  is  equally  false,  that  unbelief  is  the  cause 
of  the  divine  decree  of  the  just  condemnation  of  some,  and  that 
foreseen  faith  and  good  works  are  a  cause  of  the  predestination 
of  the  elect,  which  is  Pelagianism."  How  did  Beza  happen  to 
brand  the  doctrine  as  Pelagianism  that  foreseen  faith  is  a  cause 
of  election?  Did  that  expression  only  accidentally  flow  from 
his  pen?  Or  was  not  this  rather  a  blow  at  the  Lutherans,  his 
opponents?  Was  it  not  these  whose  doctrine  of  the  relation 
between  election  and  faith  he  meant  to  represent  as  erroneous 
and  false? 

This  question  is  very  important  in  order  to  form  an  unbiased 
judgment  of  the  situation  at  that  time.  Whoever  is  guided 
merely  by  party  interest  will  catch  at  any  straw  and  be  satisfied 
with  anything  which  looks  like  an  answer.  But  he  who  wants 
to  penetrate  to  rock  bottom  history  must  give  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  the  question:  How  did  Beza,  only  six  years  after  the 
adoption  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  come  to  stigmatize,  as 
Pelagianism,  over  against  the  Lutheran  Andrese,  the  doctrine, 
that  the  contemplation  of  "foreseen  faith"  as  a  cause  of  election 
is  Pelagianism?  Since  that  time  Calvinists  have  made  this  a 
standing  charge  against  us  Lutherans  that  our  doctrine  of  the 
election  of  believers  is  Pelagianism.     Did  Beza  intend  the  same 


472  Intuitu  Fidei. 

thing?  Did  he  understand  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutherans  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord  to  mean  that  particular  election 
embraces  believers  as  such  and  has,  therefore,  respect  to  fore- 
seen faith?  And  if  Beza  understood  the  Lutherans  to  advocate 
this  interpretation,  was  such  interpretation  without  the  support 
of  facts  or  simply  the  creature  of  his  imgaination?  Did  they 
not  really  teach  thus?  Beza  knew  undoubtedly  the  writings  of 
the  Lutheran  theologians;  he  knew  the  Formula  of  Concord  and 
the  general  understanding  among  Lutherans  of  this  mooted 
point.  Would  he  have  flung  such  a  charge  into  the  faces  of  the 
Lutherans,  had  he  known,  that  they  taught  as  regards  this 
point  merely  what  Missourians  teach  to-day,  and  interpreted 
their  Formula  of  Concord  precisely  as  Missouri  interprets  the 
same  to-day? 

Already  in  the  year  1574,  twelve  years  before  the  colloquy 
above  referred  to,  and  six  years  before  the  adoption  of  the  For- 
mula of  Concord,  Andrese  in  a  debate  about  predestination  had 
laid  down  the  following  theses: 

"Predestination  and  election  of  grace  is  the  eternal  counsel 
of  God  to  save  those  men  who  repent  of  their  sins  and  believe 
in  Christ,  the  Savior  and  only  Redeemer  of  the  world.  It  is 
the  immutable  will  of  God,  that  all  should  believe  the  Gospel 
and  that  all  who  believe  the  Gospel  should  be  saved.  Equally 
immutable  is  His  will,  that  those  should  be  condemned  who  do 
not  believe.  The  universality  of  the  promises  of  the  Gospel  is 
in  no  way  contradicted  by  the  particularism  of  election.  For 
(mark  the  proof)  God  has  promised  eternal  salvation  not  to  all 
men  without  exception  but  alone  to  believers.  Therefore  par- 
ticular election  is  included  in  the  general  promise."* 

*  This,  that  particular  election  is  included  in  the  general  promise  is 
the  chief  point  in  the  present  controversy.  The  Formula  of  Concord 
and  also  the  authors  and  signers  of  this  document  made  the  final  election 
of  persons  rest  on  the  general  promises  of  divine  grace  as  an  adequate 
foundation.  Thus  particular  election  becomes  the  corallary  of  the  gen- 
eral promise.  Therefore  they  emphasized  so  strongly  the  fact  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord  itself,  that  the  docrrine  of  election  has  been  revealed 
in  the  Word  and  that  the  right  meaning  of  the  same  must  be  learned  in 
the  Gospel  of  Christ.  Therefore  they  said  that  our  eternal  election  has 
been  proclaimed  to  us  by  Christ  in  such  passages  as  the  following:  "This 
is  the  will  of  Him  that  send  me,  that  every  one  who  seeth  the  Son  and 
believeth  on  Him  may  have  eternal  life."  "God  so  loved  the  world"  etc. 
But  Missouri  finds  in  such  passages  no  reference  to  election,  it  does  not 
find  election  involved  in  the  general  promises,  but  says  that  that  is  quite 


Did  Our  Liitheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  473 

In  the  year  1585  ^g.  Hunnius  had  treated  of  the  doctrine 
-of  election  quite  at  length  in  his  excellent  commentary  on  John, 
and  entirely  in  the  sense  of  his  definition  rendered  on  that  occa- 
sion: "Predestination  or  election  is  the  eternal  counsel  of  God 
by  which  God  without  respect  to  human  merit,  solely  out  of  grace, 
in  Christ  and  His  merits  apprehended  by  faith,  has  decreed  to  save 
all  those  of  whom  He  foresaw  and  foreknew  according  to  His 
prescience  that  they  would  repent  and  believe  in  Christ,  His  Son 
and  Savior  of  the  world." 

It  is  very  probable  that  Beza  was  not  ignorant  of  the  doctrine 
•of  election  as  held  and  set  forth  by  such  a  prominent  Lutheran. 

And  in  the  same  year,  1586,  in  which  the  colloquy  of  Moem- 
pelgart  took  place  (whether  before  or  after  we  do  not  know, 
neither  does  it  matter)  Andrege  published  a  dissertation  on  elec- 
tion, in  which  he  says  explicitly:  "We  must  teach  that  election 
has  taken  place  in  Jesus  Christ  according  to  the  revealed  Word 
■of  God  and  the  God  therein  revealed,  that  whosoever  believeth 
in  Jesus  and  apprehends  Him  as  his  Savior,  should  not  doubt, 
that  he  is  predestined  and  elected  to  eternal  life.  Just  as  election 
presupposes  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  the  knowledge  of  Him 
through  faith,  thus  the  decree  of  condemnation  presupposes 
unbelief  and  the  rejection  of  Christ.* 


a  different  matter.  "The  universal  counsel  of  salvation  with  its  universal 
promises,  'Whosoever  believeth  on  the  Son  shall  be  saved,  etc.',  is  one 
thing;  but  the  particular  election  from  the  mass  of  equal  sinners,  which 
determines  absolutely  and  unconditionally  who  among  them  shall  really 
be  saved  and  therefore  come  to  faith  and  be  preserved  in  it,  is  quite  a  dif- 
ferent thing."  This  election,  which  in  no  sense  depends  upon  future  faith, 
is  a  thing  differing  altogether  from  anything  that  can  be  discovered  in  any 
doctrine  or  universal  promise  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  quite  a  new  and  other 
Gospel  (Gal.  1,  18). 

*  Take  note:  Andrese  in  the  first  place  says  expressly:  "Election  does 
not  only  presuppose  the  merits  of  Christ  (which  Missouri  admits),  but  also 
the  knowledge  of  Christ  through  faith  (which  Missouri  with  Beza  rejects 
and  stigmatizes  as  Pelagianism);  in  the  second  place  Andrese  sees  a  paral- 
lelism between  election  and  reprobation  and  says,  that  just  as  one  pre- 
supposes faith,  thus  the  other  presupposes  unbelief."  Exactly  the  clear 
doctrine  of  the  later  dogmaticians!  If,  therefore,  these  as  "intuitu  tidei 
theologians"  have  departed  from  the  Scripture  and  Confession  with  their 
doctrine  of  election,  the  same  judgment  arraigns  already  Andrese  and 
the  whole  Church  and  theological  school  of  his  time.  The  above  thesis 
of  Andrese  contains  the  exact  opposite  to  that  of  Beza,  so  that  the  one 
contradicts  the  other  as  thesis  and  antithesis. 

The  theses  of  Andrese  show  us,  how  Beza  cam.e  to  charge  the  Luther- 


474  Intuitu  Fidei. 

"If  therefore,  .faith  is  called  a  cause  of  election" —  how  would 
a  Missourian  have  been  compelled  to  continue?  Surely  in  this 
manner:  "A  false  doctrine  is  taught  in  any  event,  for  even  if 
the  explanation  is  added,  that  faith  is  a  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  doctrine  of  election  is  not  thereby  established  as  true,  just 
because  it  is  untrue  and  remains  untrue,  that  foreseen  faith  is  a 
postulate  or  preliminary  condition  of  the  singling  out  of  partic- 
ular persons  to  the  sure  laying  hold  of  salvation.* 

ans  with  Pelagianism  on  account  of  their  doctrine  of  election  in  view  of 
foreseen  faith.  This  accusation  is  made  by  Beza  twice  in  his  annotations 
to  the  New  Testament  which  had  alread}^  appeared  twice  before  1586. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Lutherans  was  well  known  to  him  and  he  knew  at 
whom  he  aimed  when  he  placed  into  the  hands  of  Andrese  the  written 
thesis:  "It  is  false  that  foreseen  faith  or  good  works  are  a  cause  of  pre- 
destination, or  of  the  elect;    which  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Pelagians." 

And  what  did  Andrese  answer?  Does  he  say:  Thou  art  right,  Beza, 
whoever,  in  any  sense  whatever,  calls  faith  a  cause  of  election  teaches 
falsely  concerning  predestination  however  correctly  he  may  teach  of  faith 
as  a  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  for  faith  flows  from  election  and  depends 
upon  it,  therefore  how  can  it  be  a  cause  of  the  same;  therefore  no  Lu- 
theran teaches  thus,  but  we  teach  unanimously,  that  particular  election 
to  salvation  has  taken  place  without  regard  to  future  faith,  achieving 
its  end  only  through  the  giving  of  faith  and  preservation  in  the  same?  No, 
Andrese  does  not  reject  at  all  the  expression,  "Faith  is  a  cause  of  elec- 
tion", but  rather  saves  it  from  the  opprobrium  of  Pelagianism.  His  anti- 
thesis is  the  following:  "Faith  in  Jesus  is  not  a  creation  of  nature  nor  of 
human  powers  but  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  When,  therefore,  faith  is  called 
a  cause  of  election,  it  does  not  savor  of  the  tenets  of  Pelagians  who  have 
attributed  to  the  powers  of  nature  what  alone  can  be  wrought  by  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

*  Cf.  Dr.  Walther's  strange  antithesis  in  his  edition  of  Baier.  The 
thesis  of  Baier  reads:  "The  subordinate,  external  impulsive  cause  of  the 
degree  of  election  is  faith  in  Jesus,  persevering  faith."  To  this  Dr.  W. 
added  the  antithesis:  "Hollazius:  Faith  in  Jesus  is  in  spite  of  being 
a  gift  of  the  grace  of  God  a  cause  of  our  justification  and  salvation  in 
time,  why  therefore  should  He  not  have  had  a  cause  in  eternity  for  our 
justification  and  salvation?"  Baier  and  Hollazius  agree  perfectly  and  yet 
the  statement  of  Hollazius  is  said  to  be  the  antithesis  to  that  of  Baier. 
Hollazius  says  in  his  so-called  antithesis  exactly  the  same  as  Andrese, 
besides  Chemnitz,  the  chief  representative  of  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
when  already  in  1586  he  contended  against  Beza.  Why  should  poor  Hol- 
lazius as  one  of  the  later  dogmaticians  bare  his  back  and  Andrese  go  scott 
free?  It  would  have  been  a  strange  sight  to  quote  one  of  the  chief  authors 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord  in  the  antithesis  to  this  utterance  of  Baier. 
Therefore  one  must  do  the  best  he  can  under  the  circumstances. 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  475 

IV. 

With  what  rapidity  time  and  men  can  change;  when  in  the 
year  1879  a  private  colloquy  was  held  in  Columbus,  without,  how- 
ever, resulting-  in  an  improvement  of  the  situation,  it  was  agreed 
to  convene  once  more  in  the  following  year.  We  then  expressed 
the  request  that  all  undertake  a  scriptural  investigation  of  the 
subject,  inasmuch  as  our  conscience  was  bound  by  the  Word 
of  God.  "No,"  Dr.  Walther  emphatically  replied,  "we  shall  take 
you  to  the  Formula  of  Concord,  we  want  to  know  whether  you 
are  a  Lutheran." 

But  since  the  historical  documents  from  the  time  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord  have  been  brought  to  the  light  of  day  in 
such  plentitude,  and  there  is  no  more  question  about  the  sense 
the  original  Church  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  attached  to  the 
Confession,  the  efifort  is  made  in  the  camp  of  the  Missourians, 
to  make  it  appear  as  though  we  appealed  to  the  fathers  to  the 
detriment  of  the  sole  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Missouri, 
which  until  quite  recently  had  made  more  use  of  the  testimonies 
of  the  fathers  than  any  other  section  of  our  Church,  suddenly  sets 
herself  up  as  defender  of  scriptural  authority  over  against  "tra- 
ditional exegesis"  and  the  "doctrine  transmitted  from  the  fathers." 
The  matter  has  its  humorous  side,  and  it  would  be  no  trouble 
to  place  side  by  side  with  each  other  a  series  of  Missourian 
opinions  concerning  the  fathers  from  past  and  from  recent 
times.  The  comparison  would  be  richly  productive  of  humor. 
But  the  matter  has  also  is  sad  side,  for  the  leaders  of  the  Missouri 
Synod  know  very  well  the  point  involved  in  the  gathering  of  the 
multitudinous  testimonies  of  the  "Fathers";  but  as  they  have  fol- 
lowed successfully  such  tactics  in  the  past,  they  now  once  more 
desire  to  draw  the  attention  of  their  adherents  from  the  real  pomt 
at  issue  and  to  create  the  appearance  that  the  disagreement 
between  the  Scriptures  and  the  fathers  constitutes  the  issue. 

But  the  situation  is  far  otherwise.  The  divine  truth  and 
correctness  of  our  doctrine,  as  being  a  constituent  part  of  His 
revelation  and  will,  we  shall  endeavor  to  substantiate  only  from 
the  Scriptures,  the  only  source,  rule,  and  measure  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith.  Great  is  our  satisfaction  when  we  sit  as  eager  learn- 
ers at  the  feet  of  the  fathers  and  try  to  penetrate  into  the  sense 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  with  their  aid,  just  as  teachers  now  living 
can  afTord  us  most  desirable  help  in  apprehending  the  true  sense 


476  Intuitu  Fidei. 

of  Scripture ;  but  whatever  thanks  the  fathers  merit  for  their  in- 
terpretation and  exposition  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  principle 
shall,  notwithstanding,  be  maintained  among  us  opponents  of 
Missouri  that  the  Word  of  God  is  the  sole  judge  of  doctrine  and 
that  the  interpretations  of  the  fathers  are  of  value  to  us  only  in  so 
far  as  they  aid  us  in  extracting  the  sense  of  Holy  Scripture. 
It  is  calumny  on  the  part  of  our  opponents,  to  try  to  convince 
their  readers  that  we  replace  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  fathers 
as  the  source  and  rule  of  our  faith. 

What  Lutheran,  who  enjoys  the  full  command  of  his  senses, 
would  think  of  appealing  to  his  Confessions  over  against  a  Cal- 
vinist  or  papist  as  proof  for  the  correctness  of  his  belief?  But 
as  soon  as  other  questions  are  raised,  for  instance:  What  is 
Lutheran  belief?  What  is  the  teaching  and  confesssion  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  as  distinguished  from  Rome  and  Geneva?  — 
then,  without  a  doubt,  the  Lutheran  Confession  and  the  history 
of  the  doctrinal  discussions  of  that  time  assume  decided  prom- 
inence. 

Missouri  claims  to  hold  fast  to  the  Lutheran  Confession  with 
all  fidelity,  and  especially  to  the  eleventh  article  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord.  Not  only  we,  the  living  opponents,  but  also  all 
later  dogmaticians,  at  least  those  from  Gerhard  to  Hollazius 
(1615-1725)  are  charged  by  Missouri  with  a  departure  from  the 
Confession  and  the  establishment  of  an  antisymbolical  doctrine 
of  predestination.  The  present  topic,  therefore,  deals  not  with 
a  proper  understanding  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  solely  with 
the  right  understanding  of  the  eleventh  article.  Both  parties, 
Missouri  and  her  "opponents,"  appeal  with  all  energy  to  the  Sym- 
bol and  take  pains  to  prove  from  that  their  definition  of  election, 
and  to  confirm  and  establish  their  doctrine  as  true  to  the  historical 
and  dogmatical  development  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  issue 
between  us  is:  Who  has  the  Lutheran  Confession  upon  his  side 
in  the  controversy  on  predestination? 

If  we  had  only  the  words  of  the  Symbol  themselves,  we 
should  be  compelled  to  establish  our  point  over  against  our  op- 
ponents on  the  strength  of  these  alone.  But  if  we  have  in  addi- 
tion the  historical  documents  of  those  times  relative  to  the  doc- 
trinal discussions,  and  if  these  documents  cast  a  bright  light  upon 
the  very  questions  at  issue,  it  would  be  not  only  stupid,  but  also 
■dishonest  and  disingenuous,  to  push  these  documents  aside  under 
the  pretext  that  only  the  text  of  the  Symbol  is  binding,  and  that 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  477 

these  comments  and  explanations  of  the  original  defenders  and 
signers  of  the  Symbol  are  only  "private  writings"  without  any 
value  for  a  correct  construction  of  the  Confession!  If  Missouri 
wants  to  act  honestly,  she  dare  not  speak  of  the  constructions 
that  the  later  dogmaticians  placed  upon  symbolical  statements, 
and  of  their  departure  from  the  Symbol,  but  she  must  go 
back  to  the  Church  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  herself,  whose 
explanations  concerning  the  points  at  issue  are  extant  in  massive 
bulk.  An  old  German  proverb  says:  "Every  one  is  the  best 
expositor  of  his  own  words."  In  the  same  manner  the  Church 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  which  has  signed  and  accepted  the 
eleventh  article  as  her  Confession  is  the  best  expositor  of  the 
same.  If  this  Church  has  given  her  definitions  unanimously  and 
with  unmistakable  clearness,  it  is  a  sign  of  disingenuousness,  a 
disregard  of  truth  and  justice,  to  palm  off  the  opposite  doctrine 
which  has  been  expressly  condemned  and  rejected,  as  the  sense 
of  the  Confession  from  the  lips  of  the  Church.  The  subterfuge, 
that  the  whole  Church  of  that  time,  all  the  districts  of  the  father- 
land from  Luebeck  and  Rostock  in  the  North  to  Tuebingen  and 
Stuttgart  in  the  South  have  been  guilty  of  a  departure  from  the 
Symbol,  is  too  ridiculous  a  claim  to  be  made  seriously  by  any 
one. 

By  the  providence  of  God  the  unanimous  testimony  of  that 
Church  is  before  us  in  numerous  documents  and  statements. 
Already  the  writings  and  documents  of  the  time  when  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  was  still  in  the  stage  of  discussion  and  also 
of  the  time  immediately  following,  furnish  the  irrefutable  proof 
that  the  Church  of  that  time  conceived  the  particular  election  of 
persons  as  embracing  not  certain  sinners  as  such  but  the  future 
believers  in  Christ  as  such.  Thus  and  not  otherwise  did  she 
understand  the  eleventh  article  of  tlie  Formula  of  Concord  and 
therefore  she  afterwards  on  many  occasions  adduced  quotations 
from  the  eleventh  article  as  containing  and  expressing  the  above 
definition  of  election.  Whoever,  therefore,  wants  to  act  honestly, 
honor  the  truth,  and  do  justice  to  the  Lutheran  Confession,  must 
go  back  to  the  discussions,  testimonies,  and  documents  of  that 
time.  But  whoever  does  not  want  to  comply  with  this  require- 
ment, thereby  manifests  before  all  the  world  that  he  has  no  respect 
for  truth  and  right,  but  merely  desires  to  hold  fast  and  defend, 
under  any  pretext,  claims  once  made.  Such  people  must  be  left 
as  blind  leaders  of  the  blind  to  the  judgment  of  God. 


478  Intuitu  Fidei. 

We  have  repeatedly  mentioned  the  fact  that  the  Huberian 
controversy  (1592-1598)  suppHes  an  admirable  test  of  the  sense 
of  the  eleventh  article.  Only  twelve  years  had  elapsed  after  the 
breaking  out  of  this  controversy,  when  with  the  greatest  celerity 
it  had  spread  over  all  sections  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Huber 
addressed  himself  orally  and  in  writing  to  the  seats  of  correct 
theological  learning,  and  accounts  of  the  proceedings  are  extant 
in  accurate  detail.  (Cf.  Walch  Bibliotheca  II,  645;  also  Reht- 
meier,  Braunschweig's  Historic  contains  several  documents.) 
Everywhere  the  men  that  dealt  with  Huber  in  this  matter  were 
original  signers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord;  in  Rostock  it  was 
the  venerable  Chytrajus,  last  of  the  authors  of  this  great  Symbol. 
The  c[uestion  raised  by  Huber  was  not  a  new  one,  but,  as  espe- 
cially recorded  by  Selnecker,  one  which  had  been  on  the  tapis 
already  during  the  discussions  on  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and 
had  been  settled  by  the  authors  entirely  in  harmony  with  the 
opposition  which  Huber  arrayed  against  himself  later. 

At  that  time  three  definitions  of  election  were  the  shibboleths 
of  the  contending  hosts:  In  the  first  place,  the  Calvinistic  con- 
ception, according  to  which  only  "certain  men"  as  such  have 
been,  without  regard  to  future  faith,  ordained  to  eternal  life 
out  of  the  multitude  of  men  in  the  same  ruin,  and  therefore  have 
also  been  ordained  to  all  the  means  for  securing  the  same,  includ- 
ing steadfastness  in  faith.  In  the  second  place,  the  Huberian 
definition,  according  to  which  election,  agreeably  to  Calvinstic 
doctrine,  was  a  foreordination  unto  salvation  and  unto  the  means 
for  securing  the  same  including  faith  and,  therefore,  without  regard 
to  future  repentance  or  faith,  but  unlike  the  Calvinistic  dogma  em- 
bracing not  "certain  persons"  but  all  men  without  exception,  being 
in  consequence  not  particular  but  universal.  In  the  third  place, 
the  Lutheran  conception,  according  to  which  final  election 
has  been  particular  (over  gainst  the  Huberians),  embracing  not 
"certain  persons"  as  such  or  sinners  contemplated  as  being  in 
the  same  condition  with  all  other  sinners  (over  against  the  Cal- 
vinists)  but  only  foreseen  believers,  and  has  therefore  taken  place 
with  regard  to  the  merits  of  Christ  apprehended  during  the  time 
of  life  (over  against  botli  Huberians  and  Calvinists). 

The  perverse  narrowing  of  the  conception  of  election  on 
the  part  of  the  Calvinists  as  well  as  the  equally  perverse  extension 
of  the  same  excludes  faith  as  a  causative  agency  from  the  elec- 
tive decree.     This  is  the  point  which  demands  our  attention  once 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  479 

more,  inasumch  as  Missouri  compromises  with  both  Huber 
and  the  Calvinists  in  this  matter.  It  was  impossible  that  in  the 
discussions  with  Huber  this  central  point  should  not  be  discussed 
with  ever  increasing  interest  and  vigor.  All  possible  pains  were 
taken  to  define  the  existing  differences  as  much  as  possible  and 
to  induce  the  several  parties  to  avoid  vagueness  in  both  con- 
ception and  definition,  especially  since  Huber,  quite  ignorant 
of  the  facts  in  the  case,  charged  the  Lutherans  with  being  friendly 
to  the  Calvinistic  standpoint  in  teaching  particularism.  Again 
and  again  the  theologians  of  Wittenberg,  of  Rostock,  of  Lue- 
beck,  of  Brunswick,  of  Wuertemberg  replied  that  they  taught 
not  a  mere  arbitrary  election  of  certain  persons,  but  an  election 
of  believers  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  is,  not  an  absolute  election  in 
the  Calvinistic  sense,  but  a  conditional  election  according  to  the 
Gospel.  A  person  would  be  a  perfect  embodiment  of  mendacity, 
if  he  would  read  these  documents  and  yet  claim  that  the  original 
Church  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  has  known  nothing  of  an 
election  of  believers  as  such,  and  that  "the  later  dogmaticians" 
had  secured  the  acceptance  of  this  false  definition  of  election, 
thus  becoming  guilty  of  a  departure  from  the  Symbol.  No,  this 
evangelical  definition  of  election  as  a  setting  apart  of  "believers 
as  such"  reigned  supreme  already  in  the  original  Churcli  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  and  among  the  authors,  signers,  and  rep- 
resentatives living  at  that  time.  Whatever  the  situation  may 
have  been  before  the  acceptance  of  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
let  it  be  understood,  we  do  not  speak  of  the  time  when  as  yet 
no  eleventh  article  existed,  but  of  the  right  understanding  of 
the  Confession  as  received  by  the  Lutheran  Church  at  that  time 
and  having  ever  since  the  force  of  a  Symbol.  The  question  is: 
How  did  the  Church  understand  this  article  at  that  time?  And 
this  is  no  question  at  all  for  any  one  who  will  let  the  teachers 
of  the  Church  of  that  time  decide  the  question!  It  might 
possibly  be  a  question,  whether  the  Church  at  that  time  under- 
stood or  misunderstood  her  Confession  when  she  adopted  it. 
Or  the  question  might  be,  whether  the  authors,  signers,  and 
representatives  of  the  eleventh  article  vtnderstood  the  same 
properly  when  it  was  received,  but  later,  denying  this  sense  over 
against  Huber,  imagined  instead  of  the  true  sense  a  new  one, 
which  they  then  insinuated  into  the  Confession  and  since  that 
time  put  into  circulation  as  the  well  known  faith  of  the  Church. 
The  decision  having  been  rendered  as  to  the  definition  of 


480  Intuitu  Fidei. 

election  which  the  Lutheran  Church  maintained  during  the  years 
1580-1600  does  in  the  nature  of  the  case  not  involve  the  answer 
to  the  question,  whether  this  conception  of  election  is  correct 
according  to  the  Scriptures.  He  would  be  a  queer  Lutheran, 
or  Protestant  for  that  matter,  who  would  say:  "I  cannot  see  that 
the  Lutheran  definition  of  election  formed  at  that  time  comports 
with  that  which  is  found  in  passages  like  Rom.  8,  29;  Eph.  1,  4;, 
Matt.  20  and  22;  however  I  am  a  Lutheran  and  therefore  it 
behooves  me  to  subordinate  my  private  opinion  to  the  judg- 
ment of  my  Church."  That  would  be  tantamount  to  committing 
idolatry  with  the  fair  name  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Whoever 
comes  to  the  conclusion  that  he  has  found  in  the  Holy  Scriptures 
another  conception  of  election  than  has  been  propounded  in  his 
Church,  has  a  perfect  right  to  subject  his  view  of  the  doctrine 
to  a  new  test  and  to  draw  it,  to  speak  with  Luther,  from  the 
Scripture  once  and  again,  but  let  him  beware  of  setting  aside  the 
authority  of  the  Word  of  God  for  that  of  the  Church.  If  Mis- 
souri therefore  comes  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  Church  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  in  the  eleventh  article  of  this  Symbol,  as 
received  and  interpreted  by  herself,  has  both  set  up  and  received 
an  erroneous  definition  of  election,  she  has  the  right  to  go  back 
to  the  Scriptures  and  to  demonstrate  that  the  Lutheran  Church 
at  that  time  has  been  in  error.  That  would  comport  very  well 
with  probity  and  virtue.  But  it  is  quite  another  thing,  to  impute 
to  the  Lutheran  Church  of  that  time,  in  defiance  of  all  historical 
documents,  a  definition  of  election  which  it  has  been  demon- 
strated was  foreign  to  her,  or  the  insertion  in  her  Confession  of  a 
definition  of  election  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  she  has  combated 
and  spurned,  as  Calvinistic,  unchristian,  and  heathenish,  when- 
ever it  was  advocated.  This  is  the  attitude  of  Missouri;  another 
construction  of  the  article  of  election  is  foisted  upon  the  Con- 
fession than  that  which  the  very  Church  originating  it  put  upon 
it  and  recognized  as  the  truly  symbolical  and  Lutheran  definition 
of  this   important  doctrine. 

This  is  seen  beyond  a  doubt  in  the  fact  that  the  Church  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord  knew  of  no  election  to  salvation  excepting 
that  which  embraced  the  believers  in  Jesus,  while  Huber  and  the 
Calvinists  rejected  this  conception  of  election  as  antichristian  and 
false.  The  final  elective  decree  unto  salvation  relates  according 
to  Missouri  only  to  certain  persons  or  men  without  previous  re- 
gard to  future  faith,  and  not  to  believers  as  such.     Missouri,  it 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  481 

is  true,  does  not  define  election  as  extending  to  all  men,  but  with 
the  Calvinists  as  limited  to  some  men,  but  agrees  with  both 
Huber  and  the  Calvinists  in  this  that  not  believers  as  such  in 
signo  rationis  (according  to  logical  definition)  were  elected 
to  eternal  life,  but  merely  and  simply  some  men  as  men  or  as 
sinners,  contemplated  as  being  in  the  same  condition  as  all  other 
men.  This  is  precisely  the  Calvinistic  definition  of  election, 
which  the  fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  rejected  again 
and  again  as  antiscriptural,  but  which  Missouri  in  spite  of  the 
unanimous  protest  of  those  fathers  and  of  the  whole  Lutheran 
Church  since  that  time,  claims  to  have  discovered  in  the  eleventh 
article. 

Let  us  hear,  for  the  purpose  of  confirming  what  has  just 
been  said,  a  number  of  utterances  coming  from  the  fathers  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord. 

The  Wittenberg  men,  for  instance,  write:  Huber  speaks: 
"Nowhere  is  it  written  in  the  Book  of  Concord  that  God  has 
sealed  and  ordained  to  eternal  life  certain  few  or  particular  per- 
sons in  His  eternal  will."  Answer:  "It  has  never  entered  our 
mind  that  God,  in  His  eternal  will,  merely  because  it  so  pleased 
Him,  has  ordained  certain  persons  to  eternal  life  irrespective  of 
faith.  Therefore,  his  exception  is  applicable  not  to  us  but  to 
the  Calvinists.  (And  to-day  we  could  add:  to  the  Missourians.) 
It  is  just  this  which  we  chide  in  Dr.  Huber  as  well  as  in  the  Calvin- 
ists, on  the  strength  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  they  consider  the 
anterior  and  absolute  will  of  God  as  the  only  element  in  the  elec- 
tion of  grace,  though  Dr.  Huber  wishes  to  be  understood  that 
he  includes  Jesus  Christ  in  the  act  of  election;*  but  inasmuch  as 
he  makes  unappropriated  by  faith  Christ  an  element  in  predes- 
tination it  remains  a  Christ  with  blessings  unimparted.  But  we 
say  that  predestination  and  election  to  salvation  belongs  to  the 
subsequent  will  of  God.  In  harmony  with  this  we  do  not  teach 
that  the  paucity  of  the  elect  is  to  be  explained  by  a  certain  coun- 
sel, will  or  decree  of  God,  but  only  by  the  unbelief  and  contumacy 
of  men."     (Griindliche  Widerlegung,  page  162.) 

"This  particularism  that  God  is  said  to  have  elected  certain 


*  Just  as  Missouri  professes  to-day  that  no  absolute  election  is  taught 
because  (like  Huber)  it  bases  election  upon  the  merits  of  Christ  (but  only 
as  gained  and  offered,  not  as  apprehended  in  faith).  As  though  this 
would  make  the  elective  will  of  God  less  arbitrary  in  its  relation  to  men. 


482  Inhdtu  Fidei. 

and  particular  persons  irrespective  of  faith,  merely  because  it 
pleased  the  Lord,  we  deem  Calvinistic  and  unchristian."  (Page  5.) 

We  reject  the  opposite  doctrine  in  which  it  is  held,  either 
that  God  did  not  know  from  eternity  how  men  would  dispose 
themselves  toward  His  holy  counsels  formed  for  the  purpose  of 
their  salvation,  or  foreknowing  that  some  would  yield  while  the 
majority  would  not,  that  He  has  not  been  influenced  thereby  in 
His  counsels  and  decrees.  We  consider  either  view  to  be  un- 
christian and  heathenish. 

"Also  when  the  number  of  the  elect  is  considered,  a  great 
difference  will  be  found  between  our  true  doctrine  and  the  error 
of  the  Calvinists.  For  the  Calvinists  say,  that  God  has  elected 
particular  persons  for  no  other  reason  than  that  He  has  a  predi- 
lection for  those  in  distinction  from  others,  without  having  regard 
to  faith;  and  that  the  number  of  such  persons  is  unmistakably 
determined,  that  no  enlargement  and  diminuition  of  the  same 
is  possible.  Both  claims  we  reject  according  to  the  Word  of 
God."     (Page  132.) 

"The  question  concerning  our  doctrine  of  election  is: 
Whether  it  is  based  upon  the  secret  will  of  God  and  whether  it 
is  the  outcome  of  the  decretum  absolutum,  i.  e.  the  decree  which 
God  has  formed  according  to  His  free,  unchangeable  and  abso- 
lute will,  without  condition  whatever,  or  whether  the  doctrine 
of  election  is  to  be  sought  in  the  revealed  will  of  God  and  the 
holy  order  established  in  conformity  with  it.  Within  this  order 
and  will,  He  will  exercise  either  grace  or  justice  toward  men, 
according  as  they  yield  or  resist."  (Leyser,  Antihuber,  page  65.) 
The  former,  Leyser  holds,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Calvinists:  "As 
though  everything  which  man  was  to  experience  as  regards  his 
salvation  had  been  determined  by  God,  in  eternity  so  absolutely 
and  without  condition  and  provision  that  it  could  not  happen 
otherwise." 

"If,  now,  all  men  would  receive  vv^ith  believing  hearts  the 
Word  of  God  and  the  merits  of  Christ,  it  is  certain  that  all  men 
would  be  elect  children  of  God,  and  the  universality  of  election 
would  be  a  fact,  as  Huber  believes.  But  as  the  seed  of  the 
Word  of  God  is  received  according  to  Christ's  teaching  in  the 
parable  of  the  seed  (Luke  8)  only  in  the  fourth  part  by  believing 
hearts  and  permitted  to  bear  fruit,  it  is  the  inevitable  consequence 
that  in  the  application  of  election,  which  is  made  in  time,  a  pro- 
cess of  singling  out  occurs  so  that  not  all  men,  on  account  of  the 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart^  Etc.  483 

unbelief  of  many,  are  elected  to  salvation.  For  God  has  so 
formed  His  counsel  in  eternity,  that  all  men,  if  they  would  believe, 
could  be  elected  and  become  partakers  of  salvation.  But  inas- 
much as  He  has  foreseen  and  foreknown  that  not  all  would 
believe  but  that  the  larger  part  would  make  themselves  unworthy 
of  grace  through  the  seduction  of  Satan  and  their  own  unbelief, 
God's  counsel  has  been  so  fashioned  that  the  wrath  of  God  shall 
remain  upon  those  who  exclude  themselves  by  unbelief  from  the 
election  of  grace  in  the  time  of  grace;  these  as  children  of  wrath 
shall  never  be  among  the  number  of  the  elect."  (Leyser  against 
Huber,  page  21.) 

"There  are  at  this  day  three  views  concerning  the  election 
of  men  to  eternal  life.  The  first  view  holds  that  election  is 
based  upon  Christ  and  determined  by  the  jDrder  established  of 
God.  This  is  the  view  of  the  orthodox  who  receive  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Book  of  Concord.  The  second  view  is  that  of  the 
Calvinists  according  to  which  they  teach  that  a  certain  and 
small  number  of  men  have  been  absolutely  elected  irrespec- 
tive of  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  while  the  remainder  have  been 
rejected  by  a  mere  decision  of  the  will  of  God,  without  in  any 
way  considering  their  unbelief.  The  third  view  is  that  of  Huber 
according  to  which  all  men  without  regard  to  faith  or  unbe- 
lief, church  membership  or  spiritual  isolation,  have  been  elected 
to  eternal  salvation  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term.  We  shall 
now  first  of  all  furnish  that  definition  of  election  which  is 
in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  our  Church:  Predestination 
is  the  eternal  counsel  or  decree  of  God  according  to  which  God, 
the  Father,  in  His  mere  good  pleasure  and  gracious  com- 
passion, has,  in  His  Son,  elected  to  eternal  life  and  decided 
surely  to  save  all  those  who  repent  and  truly  believe  in  Jesus 
Christ,  and  remain  in  His  faith  to  the  end;  while  the  remainder 
who  do  not  believe  or  who  die  in  unbelief  after  falling  from  the 
faith,  have  been  passed  and  left,  not  on  account  of  an  absolute 
decree  of  limitation,  but  solely  on  account  of  their  impenitence  and 
unbelief."     (Hunnius,  Tractatus  De  Prjed.,  page  126,  127.) 

In  reference  to  certain  exceptions  to  the  Book  of  Concord 
on  the  part  of  the  Huberians  (and  to-day  of  the  Missourians), 
the  Wittenberg  men  write  as  follows:  "Huber  says  that  it  is 
written  in  the  Book  of  Concord  that  there  is  no  other  cause  of 
election  than  the  grace  of  God  and  His  merits,  whereby  Hun- 
nianism  is  demolished."     The  words  which   Dr.   Huber  has  in 


484  Intuitu  Fidei. 

mind  read  as  follows:  "By  this  doctrine  and  definition  of  the 
eternal  and  saving  election  of  the  chosen  children  of  God,  the 
sole  glory  is  given  to  God,  inasmuch  as  He  saves  us  without  our 
merits  or  good  works  according  to  the  purpose  of  His  will,  as 
it  is  written  Eph.  1:  'Having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption 
of  children  by  Jesus  Christ  to  Himself,  according  to  the  good 
pleasure  of  His  will,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  His  grace, 
wherein  He  has  made  us  accepted  in  the  Beloved.'  Therefore 
it  is  false  and  wrong,  when  it  is  taught  that  not  only  the  grace 
and  the  holy  merits  of  Christ  but  something  in  us  also  is  a  cause 
on  account  of  which  God  has  elected  us  unto  eternal  life."  These 
words  are  directed  not  against  us  but  against  the  papists,  and 
also  against  the  self-righteous  and  synergists.  For  we  do  not 
say  that  faith  is  a  cause  in  us,  on  account  of  which  God  has- 
elected  us.  For  though  faith  does  belong  to  predestination,  it 
is  accorded  place  not  as  a  quality,  virtue  or  good  work  in  us, 
but  in  so  far  as  it  appropriates  and  puts  within  us  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  His  holy  merits  so  that  it  is  not  faith  in  itself  but 
solely  the  merits  of  Christ  apprehended  by  faith  which  is  a  cause 
of  our  election  by  God.  It  is  false  when  Dr.  Huber  imputes  to 
us  the  view  that  we  have  been  elected  propter  fidem  (on  account 
of  faith);  this  imputation  has  been  refuted  above.  But  that  the 
Book  of  Concord  did  not  want  to  exclude  faith  in  Christ  in  the 
paragraph  in  question  is  patent  from  the  fact  that  it  mentions 
among  the  eight  requirements  which  belong  to  the  election  of 
grace  also  faith  in  Jesus  as  was  explained  above  when  the  issue 
was  stated.  And  first  of  all  we  have  heard  that  God  'in  His 
eternal  divine  counsel  has  determined  that  He  would  save 
no  one  except  those  who  acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly 
believe  in  Him.'  If  faith  did  not  belong  to  the  eternal  counsel 
of  God  respecting  our  election,  for  some  other  reason  than  that  it 
is  no  meritorious  cause  or  a  cause  on  account  of  which  we  are 
elected,  then  saving  faith,  thus  viewed,  should  be  stricken  also 
from  the  article  of  justification  as  has  been  repeatedly  pointed 
out  and  sufficiently  explained."     (163.) 

Flunnius  also  quotes  the  well-known  passage  from  the  Book 
of  Concord  (Mueller  723,  87,  88)  to  which  Missouri  and  Huber 
appeal,  and  continues:  "The  very  letter  of  the  words  testifies  that 
it  is  not  faith  in  Jesus  which  is  expelled  from  the  counsel  of 
election  but  human  works  and  merits.  This  is,  furthermore, 
taught  in  the  affixed  quotation  and  exposition  of  that  passage  of 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  485 

Paul  (Rom.  9) :  'That  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election 
might  stand,  not  of  works  but  of  Him  that  calleth,  It  was  said 
unto  her,  the  elder  shall  serve  the  younger.'  Ruber's  own  quo- 
tation is  his  best  refutation.  For  when  it  is  said  that  there  is 
nothing  in  us,  on  account  of  which  we  are  elected,  it  is  evident  that 
by  this  phraseology  (on  account  of  which)  human  merit  is  meant, 
and  that  by  this  expression  not  we  are  impugned  but  the  papists, 
who  boast  of  the  merits  of  their  works.  Faith  is  not  a  constit- 
uent element  of  election  on  account  of  its  worthiness  or  merit. 
Therefore  we  do  not  say  that  we  have  been  elected  to  eternal  life 
on  account  of  faith,  but  on  account  of  Christ,  and  are  contem- 
plated with  favor  in  virtue  of  the  merit  of  Christ  and  the  saving 
knowledge  of  Him.  Through  faith  we  are  elected,  not  as  being  a 
quality  or  virtue  in  us,  but  as  having  gone  outside  of  ourselves  to 
apprehend  the  foundation  of  our  election,  Jesus  Christ.  And 
what  the  Book  of  Concord  affirms  regarding  predestination,  it 
affirms  also  regarding  justification  and  salvation,  that  God  does 
not  justify  and  save  on  account  of  anything  inherent  in  us,  albeit 
He  does  not  justify  and  save  without  faith  apprehending  its 
object.  Far  from  expunging  faith  from  the  eternal  purpose  of 
God  respecting  election  the  F.  C.  affirms  in  explicit  words  that  God 
has  determined  in  the  eternal  decree  of  election  that  He  would 
save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowledge  and  truly  believe  in 
His  Son."     (Tractatus,  p.  654  and  fil.) 

The  Rostock  men,  among  them  the  venerable  Chytrseus, 
write:  "The  merciful  will  of  God  burning  in  love  toward  man- 
kind is  this,  that  all  men  should  be  elected,  justified,  and  saved, 
namely  through  faith  in  Jesus.  But  because  not  all  men  believe, 
God  does  not  account  all  men  without  distinction  as  elect  and 
recipients  at  His  hands  of  righteousness  and  salvation  in  Christ, 
though  He  wills  concerning  all  that  they  should  be  elected  and 
saved  if  they  believe.  (Quos  tamen  omnes  voluisset  elegi  et 
salvari,  si  credidissent.)  We  have  told  Huber  on  several  occasions 
and  repeated  it  during  our  last  conversation  when  he  bade  us  fare- 
well, that  the  true  and  complete  definition  of  election  according 
to  Scripture  and  the  Book  of  Concord  embraces  not  only  the  gra- 
cious will  of  God,  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  the  general  promises, 
but  also  true  and  steadfast  faith  in  the  mercy  of  God  and  Christ, 
the  Mediator  and  Savior  of  the  whole  human  race,  because  Christ 
is  of  no  advantage  without  faith,  and  all  requirements  of  the  Holy 


486  Intuitu  Fidel. 

Scriptures  demand  faith  in  express  terms."  (Rehtmeier,  Braun- 
schweig's K.  Hist.  IV.  Beilagen,  p.  191.) 

Furthermore:  "With  reference  to  the  phrase:  election  in 
the  wider  sense,  we  repeat,  if  it  is  not  acceptable  to  call  'the  will 
of  God  in  Christ,  according  to  which  He  earnestly  desires  the  sal- 
vation of  all  men,'  predestination,  rt  is  not  meet  to  start  a  contro- 
versy on  this  account,  if  only  the  essential  things  and  the  salu- 
tary, comforting  doctrine  are  held  fast.  For  when  the  under- 
standing of  the  matter  has  been  established,  we  should  be  of  a 
yielding  disposition  in  the  use  of  phrases  and  words.  And  as 
we  do  not  doubt,  that  there  is  the  most  blessed  harmony  in  the 
doctrine  of  election  among  us,  we  can  on  both  sides  retain  the 
expression:  predestination  in  the  wider  sense,  treating  of  the 
complete  predestination  of  the  individual  to  be  saved  —  of  which 
the  Book  of  Concord  treats  and  which  is  the  subject  under  dis- 
cussion —  is  truly  and  essentially  universal,  embracing  all  men, 
both  Jew  and  Gentile,  who  know  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God  and 
Savior  of  the  world  in  faith,  and  remain  in  this  faith  to  the  end;: 
just  as  the  righteousness  which  avails  before  God  is  universal 
unto  and  upon  all  them  that  believe.  For  there  is  no  differ- 
ence, Rom.  3.  But  those  who  do  not  believe  remain  in  the  judg- 
ment and  under  the  wrath  of  God  forever.  Therefore  they  are  not 
said  to  be  elect,  but  to  be  cast  away." 

The  theologians  of  Wuertemberg  (both  those  of  the  Tue- 
bingen  and  Stuttgart  schools)  are  no  less  explicit  in  stating  what 
was  the  definition  of  election  of  the  original  Church  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord.  They  write:  "It  is  is  not  only  improper  as  to  sense 
and  form,  but  absolutely  false,  when  Huber  says  that  God  has 
elected  all  men  sine  respectu  vel  ante  omnem  respectum  fidei,  i. 
e.  without  regard  to  faith.  Said  Huber  lays  down  and  defends  a 
doctrine  of  universal  election  such  that  the  particular  election  of 
believers,  of  which  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord treat  and  which  embraces  the  believers  and  pious  children 
of  God,  can  nowhere  stand  beside  it.  Moreover,  he  charges 
those  pure  teachers  who  contend  earnestly  for  this  election,  on 
the  strength  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
quite  groundlessly  and  falsely  with  Calvinism.  The  passages  of 
Holy  Scripture  which  treat  of  the  election  of  the  believing  chil- 
dren of  God,  he  perverts  in  order  to  make  them  subserve  his 
false  opinion.  Divine  predestination,  in  the  narrow  sense,  is 
election  of  particular  persons,  inasmuch  as  it  is  limited  alone  to- 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  487 

those  who  apprehend  m  true  faith  the  grace  of  God  and  the  merits 
of  Christ  and  keep  the  same  to  the  end.  For  it  is  nothing  else  but 
the  eternal  will,  counsel,  and  pleasure  of  God,  to  save  by  the  fool- 
ishness of  preaching  those  who  believe.  (Acta  Huberiana,  Part 
I.,  pp.  2  and  3.) 

"Thou  (Huber)  formerly,  hast  given  us  plainly  to  under* 
stand  that  thou  disapprovedst  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Calvinists 
in  refusing  to  believe  a  particular  election,  as  they  teach  that 
certain  persons  shall  be  saved  through  an  unconditional  and 
fatalistic  decree.  We  have  not  been  able  to  conceive  that  thou 
desirest  the  destruction  of  the  orthodox  sense  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  according  to  which  election  embraces  children  of 
God.  We  see  from  this  that  the  cause  of  thy  error  is  a  failure 
to  comprehend  the  existence  of  a  middle  path  (aliquod  medium) 
between  the  universal  love  of  God  and  the  absolute  decree 
regarding  some  few  as  certain  of  salvation,  even  that  order  of 
God  according  to  which  He  elects  all  believers  in  Christ  and  has 
denied  salvation  to  all  outside  of  these."  (Page  71)  Huber  had 
written:  "In  the  first  place  I  do  not  find  any  erroneous  doc- 
trine in  the  Book  of  Concord."  On  this  the  Wuertemberg  men 
comment  in  the  following  manner:  "From  this  it  is  evident  that 
Huber's  glory,  when  he  appeals  to  the  Formula  of  Concord,  is 
vain  and  mere  fencing  before  a  mirror.  Huber  says:  'All  men 
even  unbeHevers  have  been  elected  to  salvation.'  The  Book 
of  Concord  says  the  contrary.  .  .  .  Huber  does  not  want  to  con- 
sider faith  and  perseverance  as  elements  in  the  act  of  predesti- 
nation and  holds  that  faith  has  to  do  with  nothing  but  the 
application  and  appropriation  of  offered  grace  during  life,  the 
time  of  grace.  But  the  Book  of  Concord  counts  among  the 
eight  elements  which  belong  to  predestination  also  justification 
and  perseverance  in  faith  and  insists  upon  including  all  this  and 
excluding  none  of  the  things  mentioned,  when  we  speak  of  the 
counsel,  predestination,  election,  and  foreordination  of  God.* 

"Therefore  as  often  as  Huber  appeals  to  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord we  should  know  that  he  does  not  proceed  honestly  but  con- 
templates treachery."     (Page  215.) 

*  In  the  Latin  original  the  words  read  as  follows  on  page  185:  "Con- 
cordise  Liber  inter  octa  requisita,  quae  ad  electionis  actam  pertinent,  etiam 
fidem,  justificationem  et  perseverantiam  in  fide  requirit,  nee  quiquam 
horum  excludendum  censet,  cum  de  prsedestinatione  ad  vitam  aeternam 
agitur." 


488  Intidtu  Fidei. 

As  formerly  the  Calvinists  always  pretended  that  at  one  time, 
they  and  the  Lutherans  had  been  one,  but  that  the  innovation 
was  introduced  later,  so  also  Huber  wrote  that  Hunnius  had 
invented  a  new  dogma  in  teaching  a  particularism  in  election. 
Thereupon  the  Wuertemberg  men  answered:  "How  can  Dr. 
Huber  say  that  Dr.  Hunnius  has  given  currency  and  support  to 
the  doctrine  from  animosity  against  himself,  when  this  doctrine 
has  been  adopted  by  our  Church  many  years  ago  with  greatest 
unanimity^  and  approval."     (Page  214.) 

Concerning  the  difference  between  the  Lutheran  and  the  Cal- 
vinistic  definition  of  election,  the  Wuertemberg  fathers  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord  say  the  following:  "Immense  is  the  differ- 
ence between  our  pure  doctrine  of  the  particular  election  of  the 
children  of  God,  as  it  is  presented  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and 
that  of  the  Calvinists.  By  our  doctrine  the  people  are  directed 
to  the  revealed  will  of  God  and  the  true  Book  of  Life,  namely 
Jesus  Christ,  being  taught  that  all  those  are  elected  in  Jesus 
Christ  who  truly  repent  and  believe  in  Jesus  Christ.  The  Calvin- 
istic  view  of  election  or  predestination  rests  upon  a  mere  decree 
of  God  who  has  purposed  and  resolved  by  Himself  to  save  some 
persons,  albeit  He  did  not  contemplate  that  they,  in  faith,  would 
apprehend  Christ,  and  in  Him  righteousness  and  salvation." 
(Page  270.) 

"When  the  question  is  raised  as  to  predestination  proper, 
and  information  is  sought  about  the  persons  whom  God  has 
elected  to  eternal  life,  i.  e.  to  whom  God  would  give  the  kingdom 
of  glory  and  eternal  salvation,  it  is  answered  rightly,  that  not  all 
men,  but  only  believers  are  elected  to  eternal  life.  This  is  the 
very  thing  found  plainly  in  the  Christian  Book  of  Concord.  The 
words  read:  "Predestination  or  election  embraces  only  the  pious, 
well-pleasing  children  of  God."     (Page  294.) 

"For  we  cannot  deny,  but  must  affirm  as  desiring  to  speak 
properly  and  according  to  the  rule  of  divine  truth,  that  God  gives 
eternal  life  not  to  all  men  but  to  those  who  believe.  And  that  is 
intended  to  be  taught  also  by  St.  Paul  when  he  says  that  we  are 
elected  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."     (Page  292.) 

V. 

"The  Scriptures  teach  that  God  desires  the  salvation  of  all 
men  by  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  but  that  those,  in  particular, 
have  been  predestinated  and  ordained  to  salvation  by  Him  who 


Did  Otir  Lictheraii  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  489 

perseveringly  believe  in  Christ.  This  universal  order,  or  rather 
universal  will  of  God,  that  the  whole  human  race  should  be  re- 
stored by  faith  in  Jesus,  we  do  not  deny.  Another  matter  is  the 
predestination  and  ordination  to  salvation  which  is  mentioned  and 
described  in  the  Confession  and  Scriptures,  inasmuch  as  the  latter 
is  confined  to  those  who  apprehend  and  appropriate  to  them- 
selves the  gracious  counsel  and  will  of  God  concerning  the  resto- 
ration of  the  whole  human  race.  'This  predestination  and  ordi- 
nation has  taken  place  in  Christ' — not,  however,  apart  from  faith 
or  irrespective  of  faith,  without  which  Christ  profits  us  nothing." 
(Page  305.) 

In  the  second  part  of  the  Acta  Huberiana  (p.  7)  the  Wuer- 
temberg  men  cite  the  following  points  as  false  doctrines  of  Hu- 
ter:  "He  recognizes  only  one  will  of  God,  namely  the  universal 
will,  to  save  all  men  through  Jesus  Christ.  But  the  ordinate  will 
of  God,  according  to  which  God  decrees  and  ordains  that  only 
"believers  are  to  be  saved,  but  unbelievers  and  the  impenitent 
to  be  condemned,  he  denies  over  against  the  Holy  Scriptures 
and  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Denying  the  same  he  finds  in  it 
a  contradiction  of  the  universal  will.  .  .  .  Huber  teaches  falsely, 
furthermore  concerning  predestination  when  he  maintains:  1. 
That  God  from  eternity  has  elected  all  men  to  eternal  life  in  Christ 
before  and  without  any  regard  to  faith,  no  matter  whether  men 
are  future  believers  or  not;  2.  that  besides  this  election  there  is 
no  other  on  the  part  of  God;  3.  this  universal  election  he  holds  to 
be  an  irreconcilable  contradiction  to  the  particular  election  of 
believers ;  4.  the  particular  election  of  believers  which  is  taught  in 
Scripture  and  again  affirmed  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  he  denies, 
saying  that  it  is  not  found  in  God;  he  brands  it  as  Pelagianism 
and  Calvinism,  and  he  blasphemes,  calling  it  a  vain  phantom  and 
abyss  of  despair;  ...  8.  the  particular  election  of  believers 
(which  is  found  in  the  Bible  and  Book  of  Concord)  overthrows, 
as  he  maintains,  the  universal  will  of  God,  according  to  which  all 
men  are  to  be  saved." 

With  reference  to  Huber's  appeal  to  earlier  Lutheran  teach- 
ers the  Wuertemberg  men  say:  "These  do  not  defend  the  errors 
of  Huber,  for  not  one  of  them  has  excluded  from  the  act  of  elec- 
tion the  consideration  of  faith;  not  one  of  them  has  opposed 
election  in  a  wider  sense  to  the  particular  election  of  believers 
which  is  taught  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  according  to  the 
Word  of  God;  not  one  has  denied  the  latter  or  blasphemed  it 


490  hituitii  Fidei. 

after  the  manner  of  Huber,  but  the  majority  of  them  have  ap- 
proved the  particular  election  of  believers  on  the  part  of  God 
(not  the  absolute  election  of  the  Calvinists).     Page  8. 

Besides  the  universal  will  of  God  and  His  pleasure  to  save  all 
men  through  Christ  who  is  to  be  apprehended  in  faith,  the  Book 
of  Concord  treats  of  this  specific  election  with  such  explicitness 
and  avowed  directness,  that  we  should  think  no  man  in  his 
sound  senses  could  or  would  deny  it.  For  1.  right  in  the  begin- 
ning, where  the  Epitome  treats  of  the  difference  between  fore- 
knowledge and  foreordination,  the  following  words  are  found: 
'Foreknowledge  embraces  at  the  same  time  the  good  and  the 
bad,'  etc.,  'but  predestination,  or  the  eternal  election  of  God  em- 
braces only  the  pious,  well-pleasing  children  of  God.'  2.  In 
the  sixth  paragraph  we  read:  'Christ  is  the  Book  of  Life,  in  whom 
all  are  written  and  elected  who  are  to  be  saved  (qui  salutem 
aeternam  consecjuuntur).  But  not  all  men  attain  to  eternal  sal- 
valtion,  though  God  had  willed  according  to  His  antecedent  will 
that  all  men  should  be  saved;  but  men  have  themselves  neglected 
the  means  of  salvation.  3.  In  this  way  the  eternal  election  of 
the  Father  is  to  be  sought  in  Christ,  who  has  decreed  in  His  eter- 
nal counsel,  that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those  who 
acknowledge  and  believe  in  His  Son  Jesus.'  4.  And  in  the  Dec- 
laratio  the  first  words  of  the  eleventh  article  read  thus:  'Con- 
cerning the  eternal  election  of  the  children  of  God  no  contro- 
versy has  arisen  so  far  among  the  theologians  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.'  In  these  words  the  particular  scope  of  the  subse- 
quent treatise,  namely  the  election  of  the  children  of  God,  is 
surely  given.  5.  A  few  lines  further  down  the  treatise  proper  con- 
tains the  following,  words :  'In  the  first  place  the  diflference  be- 
tween the  foreknowledge  of  God  and  the  election  of  the  children 
of  God  is  to  be  diligently  noted,  for  the  foreknowledge  of  God 
embraces  all  creatures  of  God,  both  good  and  evil,'  etc.,  'but  the 
eternal  election  of  God  or  foreordination  to  salvation  does  not 
embrace  both  good  and  evil  but  only  the  children  of  God  elected 
and  ordained  to  eternal  life  before  the  foundations  of  the  world 
were  laid.'  6.  Again  we  read:  'When  we  desire  to  speak  and 
meditate  profitably  upon  the  predestination  or  election  of  the 
children  of  God  to  eternal  life,  we  should  accustom  ourselves  not 
to  speculate  on  the  secret,  hidden  and  inefifable  purpose  of  God, 
but  we  should  view  the  counsel,  decree  and  foreordination  as  they 
are  presented  in  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  true  Book  of  Life,     The 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  491 

whole  doctrine  of  the  purpose,  counsel,  will  and  foreordination 
of  God  respecting  our  redemption,  call,  justification  and  salvation 
should  be  considered  as  a  whole  and  in  its  mutual  relations  ac- 
cording to  the  example  of  St.  Paul,  who  has  explained  this  article, 
Rom.  8  and  Eph.  1.  .  .  .  Such  was  the  treatment  that  Christ 
has  accorded  this  doctrine  in  the  parable  of  the  marriage  of  the 
king's  son,  Matt.  22.  7.  At  the  same  place  we  find  among  other 
constituent  elements  of  predestination  the  following  mentioned 
as  fourth  in  order:  'That  He  wills  to  receive  into  grace,  adoption 
and  inheritance  of  eternal  life  all  those  who  in  true  repentance 
and  by  true  faith  receive  Jesus  Christ.'  As  fifth  we  find  men- 
tioned: 'That  He  wills  to  sanctify  those  in  love  whom  He  has 
thus  justified,'  as  St.  Paul  says,  Eph.  1.  As  6th:  'That  He  wills 
to  keep  them  in  their  great  weakness  against  world,  devil  and 
flesh,  and  guide  them  upon  His  way;  when  they  stumble,  to  raise 
them;  when  they  are  under  the  cross  and  in  tribulation,  to  com- 
fort and  keep  them.'  As  7th :  'That  He  wills  to  strengthen,  and 
increase  in  them  the  good  work  that  He  has  commenced,  and 
keep  them  to  the  end,  provided  (si  modo),  they  hold  to  the  Word 
of  God,  are  instant  in  prayer,  remain  in  the  grace  of  God  and 
make  diligent  use  of  the  gifts  received.'  As  8th.  'That  He  wills 
to  bestow  eternal  joy  and  glory  upon  those  whom  He  has 
elected,  called  and  justified,'  8.  And  finally  these  words  are 
added:  "All  this  (namely  the  items  above  mentioned)  is  em- 
braced in  Holy  Scripture  in  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  election 
of  the  children  of  God  to  sonship  and  salvation;  all  this  should  be 
understood  by  election,  nor  should  it  ever  be  excluded  and  omit- 
ted, when  we  speak  of  the  purpose,  foreknowledge,  election  and 
foreordination  of  God.'  All  this,  quoted  from  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord, proves  conclusively,  that  besides  the  universal  will  of  God, 
according  to  which  all  men  are  to  be  saved  through  the  appointed 
means,  there  is  taught  as  a  subordinate  element  to  the  former 
the  election  proper  of  the  faithful  and  children  of  God.  This  is  the 
subsequent  will  of  God,  according  to  which  God,  having  regard 
to  faith  and  unbelief  (respiciens),  has  elected  only  believers  to 
eternal  life  (Solos  credentes).     (Page  38-39.) 

The  rejoinder  of  the  Wittenberg  men  is  followed  immedi- 
ately by  that  of  the  Wuertembergers  who  answer  entirely  in  har- 
mony with  the  former  the  arguments  of  Huber,  and  now  of  Mis- 
souri, ostensibly  drawn  from  the  Book  of  Concord:  1.  "Thoif 
sayest:     'How  could  regard  be  had  to  faith  in  election,  since  faith 


492  Intuitu  Fidel. 

in  man  belongs  to  time,  but  the  act  of  election  to  eternity?'  We 
answer:  'Yea,  how  can  that  be?  In  what  other  way  than  by 
the  foreknowledge,  or  strictly  speaking  the  omniscience  of  God. 
For,  to  speak  properly,  God  foreknows  nothing,  but  sees  every- 
thing, past  or  future  as  present  before  Him.  Therefore  He  has 
not  only  forseen  the  faith  of  men  from  all  eternity,  namely  those 
who  would  receive  the  Word  of  the  Gospel  in  true  faith,  those 
who  persevere,  those  who  fall  away,  or  neglect  entirely  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel,  but  He  has  also  known  most  accurately  the 
number  of  the  elect.'  2.  'But  it  is  expressly  prohibited,  in  the 
Book  of  Concord,  to  draw  conclusions  from  the  foreknowledge 
of  God  concerning  election,  its  extent  and  nature.'  We  reply: 
'The  words  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  signify  something  entirely 
different  if  they  are  rightly  weighed.  For  the  Book  of  Concord 
does  not  absolutely  and  entirely  exclude  the  foreknowledge  of 
God  from  this  article,  but  prohibits  merely  this:  that  the  doctrine 
of  election  be  confined  to  the  inexplicable,  hidden  counsel  of  God, 
as  though  (quasi)  it  contained  no  other  element  (nihil  praterea),  or 
was  to  be  limited  to  the  mere  foreknowing  of  which  persons  were 
to  be  saved  or  damned.  But  what  those  things  are  which  belong 
to  the  treatment  of  this  doctrine  we  have  demonstrated  from  the 
Book  of  Concord.  The  act  of  election  was  not  consummated 
without  the  incarnation,  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  being 
foreknown  and  considered,  nor  was  faith  omitted.  And  Paul  in 
Rom.  8,  29,  manifestly  deduces  election  from  foreknowledge. 
Therefore  the  Book  of  Concord  says  at  another  place:  'And 
God  in  such  counsel,  purpose  and  fore'^^'dination  has  not  only 
prepared  salvation,'  etc.  3.  'But,  if  faith  was  considered  at  our 
election  (thou  sayest),  it  becomes  a  cause  of  election  in  us;  how- 
ever the  Book  of  Concord  afBrms  the  mercy  of  God  and  the 
merits  of  Christ  to  be  the  sole  cause  of  election  (plane  totalem); 
moreover  we  hear  that  it  has  been  consummated  solely  through 
the  gracious  application  of  the  merits  of  Christ;  that  the  Book 
of  Concord  does  not  permit  us  to  add  something  in  us  as  an  ad- 
ditional cav:se  to  its  completion,  or  if  such  a  cause  is  dragged  In, 
it  condenms  it  as  a  blasphemous  doctrine.'*     We  answer:     'The 


*  The  objections  of  Huber  and  the  Calvinists  are  repeated  to-day 
by  Calvinizing  Missourians.  Shall  we  subscribe  to  the  interpretation  of 
such  opponents  rather  than  to  that  of  the  original  authors  and  signers? 
In  view  of  such  declarations  of  the  Wittenberg  as  well  as  the  Tuebingen 
theologians  we  must  marvel  at  the  colossal  impudence  of  the  St.  Louis  men 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  493 

same  Book  of  Concord  is  abundantly  able  to  furnish  a  clear  and 
exhaustive  reply.  The  Book  of  Concord  by  making  the  grace 
of  God  the  sole  cause  of  our  election  in  no  wise  excludes  faith, 
but  merely  our  good  works.  Therefore  the  Book  referred  to 
speaks  thus:  'By  this  brief  definition  of  the  eternal  election 
of  God  the  honor  is  given  alone  to  God,  for  it  is  held  that 
He,  out  of  pure  grace,  saves  us  without  our  merit  according  to 
the  purpose  of  His  will,'  —  words  which  evidently  do  not  exclude 
faith  but  good  works.  For  faith  can  no  more  be  removed  from 
the  article  of  election  than  from  that  of  justification,  and  yet 
neither  in  the  one  nor  in  the  other  is  it  presented  as  an  efficient 
or  meritorious  cause  of  salvation.  When  thou,  therefore  de- 
mandest  that  a  single  quotation  be  advanced  confirming  the 
consideration  of  faith  in  the  act  of  election,  this  demand  can  be 
complied  with  by  advancing  any  of  those  passages  which  treat 
of  election,  or  of  Christ  or  of  grace,  or  of  the  children  of  God. 
For  all  these  things  include  faith,  and  none  of  these  things  has 
ever  been  considered  in  the  counsels  of  God  apart  from  faith. 
Whoever  denies  this,  disturbs  and  mutilates  the  whole  order  of 
election  and  contradicts  both  the  Scriptures  and  Formula  of  Con- 
cord. .  .  .  We  disapprove,  therefore,  the  rejection  and  the  ridi- 
cule, on  thy  part,  of  the  foreknowledge  of  faith.  For  just  as  God 
has  foreseen  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  and  rejected  them  accord- 
ingly, so  God  has  foreseen  the  faith  of  believers  and  elected  them 
on  account  of  Christ,  whom  they  would  apprehend  in  faith,  unto 
eternal  life." 

The  Wuertemberg  theologians  brand  as  Calvinistic  the  fol- 
lowing thesis:  "God  has  neither  rejected  any  one  on  account  of 
foreseen  unbelief  nor  has  He  elected  any  one  on  account  of 
foreseen  faith,  for  He  does  everything  according  to  His  abso- 
lute, unconditional,  positive  will,  which  is  the  final  cause."  As  a 
Lutheran-orthodox  rejoinder  to  this  the  Wuertemberg  theolog- 
ians propose  the  following  thesis:  "The  consideration  of  faith 
can  not  be  eliminated  from  election,  because  God,  not  abso- 
lutely and  unconditionally  but  according  to  a  certain  order, 
decided  to  save  us,  viz.  in  the  Savior  to  be  apprehended  by  faith. 
And  without  faith  Christ  with  all  His  blessings  is  of  no  profit 
to  us;    but  notwithstanding  this,   nothing  is  ascribed  either  to 

who  style  themselves  the  successors  of  those  "manifestly  orthodox"  the- 
ologians of  Wittenberg  and  Tuebingen,  but  their  opponents  as  succes- 
sors of  Huber.     O  tempora,   O   mores! 


494  Intuitu  Fidei. 

human  powers,  or  to  the  merits  of  human  works,  since  the  reason 
for  justification  is  the  same  as  that  for  election.  (Cum  eadem 
sit  justificationis  et  electionis  nostrge  ratio.)" 

■'Particular  election  is  the  eternal  act  of  God,  by  which  He 
has  decided  in  His  counsel  according  to  the  purpose  of  His 
will  to  save  believers,  a  definition  which  Huber  shall  not  destroy, 
unless  he  first  demolish  the  Bible  and  Book  of  Concord."  (Page 
3  62.)  "We  define  according  to  the  Scriptures  particular  election 
in  this  manner:  It  is  the  act  or  counsel  of  God,  the  purpose  and 
pleasure  of  His  will,  to  save  believers  in  Christ."  (Page  144.) 
"Election  is  the  purpose  of  God,  according  to  which  the  mer- 
ciful Father  out  of  grace,  in  Christ,  has  elected  to  eternal  life 
all  those  whom  He  has  foreseen  in  His  prescience  as  penitent, 
and  persevering  believers  in  Christ."     (Page  163.) 

"Between  Huber  and  ourselves,"  we  read  on  page  71,  "the 
point  at  issue  is  not  a  phrase,  since  also  orthodox  theologians 
have  expressed  themselves  as  he  has,  though  in  a  widely  dif- 
ferent sense.  No,  the  issue  involved  is  a  question  of  truth  and 
error,  whether  God  has  ordained  to  eternal  life  all  men  before 
and  without  respect  to  their  faith.  To  affirm  this  question,  as 
is  done  by  Huber,  means  to  impiously  and  blasphemously  impugn 
the  justice  of  God.*  A  further  issue  is,  the  election  of  believ- 
ers to  eternal  life  according  to  His  subsequent  will,  in  which 
He  has  had  regard  to  faith  and  unbelief.  The  position  Huber 
occupies  with  reference  to  this  issue  is  inimical  both  to  Scripture 
and  Book  of  Concord." 

"The  doctrine  of  the  particular  election  of  believers  which 
is  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  may  contradict  the  opin- 
ion of  Huber,  but  not  our  doctrine  or  that  of  any  otiier  pure 

*  Mark  well:  not  this  is  found  impious  and  blasphemous  in  Ruber's 
doctrine  that  he  teaches  the  universality  of  election,  but  rather  that  he 
teaches  an  election  to  eternal  life  on  the  part  of  God  "without  and  before 
any  consideration  of  faith."  Just  in  this  respect  the  Missourian  defi- 
nition of  election  agrees  with  that  of  Huber  and  the  Calvinists.  As 
Huber  taught  then  that  God  has  elected  all  men  to  eternal  life  without 
the  consideration  of  faith,  which  in  the  nature  of  the  case  involves 
according  to  Huber's  own  admission  an  election  to  faith,  so  Missouri 
teaches  concerning  the  election  of  particular  persons.  If  Huber's  doctrine 
impugned  the  justice  of  God  and  was  therefore  branded  as  blasphemous 
by  the  fathers,  how  much  more  does  the  Missourian  doctrine  fall  under 
this  sweeping  condemnation,  since  their  definition  of  election  is  identical 
with  that  of  the  Calvinists  which  the  Wittenberg  theologians  describe 
as   unchristian   and   heathenish. 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  495 

theologians.  Nor  does  it  vitiate  that  of  universal  election,  as 
has  been  shown  conclusively  in  our  treatise  from  the  Word 
of  God  as  well  as  from  the  Book  of  Concord.  The  particular 
election  of  believers  is  not  contradictory  but  subordinate  to  uni- 
versal election."     (Page  74.) 

Huber  had  written:  "You  postulate  a  particular  election 
on  the  part  of  God  and  draw  the  conclusion  from  it  that  God, 
according  to  a  subsequent  will,  has  elected  to  salvation  only 
believers  in  Christ.  Here  we  join  issue.  I  can  not  approve  of 
your  thesis,  for  one  reason,  because  it  lacks  the  form  of  sound 
words  enjoined  and  observed  in  Scripture.  The  passages 
adduced  by  you  do  not  contain  a  word  regarding  a  particular 
election,  but  speak  of  salvation  as  the  end  of  those  who  have 
appropriated  to  themselves,  by  faith,  the  universal  election  in  Jesus 
Christ.  Hence  the  phraseology  of  Scripture :  Whosoever  believ- 
eth  on  the  Son  hath  eternal  life;  but  nowhere  is  it  written  that 
God  has  elected  believers  to  eternal  life."  The  Wuertemberg 
theologians  answer:  "Huber,  according  to  this,  rejects  a  doc- 
trine derived  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Book  of  Concord. 
For  Paul  says  thus:  Tt  pleased  God  to  save  them  that  believe.' 
1  Cor.  1.  And  the  Book  of  Concord  teaches:  'God  has  decreed 
in  His  eternal  counsel  that  He  will  save  no  one  except  those  who 
acknowledge  and  truly  believe  in  Christ.'  This  is  an  example  of 
the  form  of  sound  words  in  Scripture  and  the  Book  of  Concord, 
with  which  our  thesis  agrees  perfectly.  For  even  according  to 
Huber's  opinion  these  expressions  are  equivalent  as  to  their  mean- 
ing: 'To  elect  to  eternal  life  in  Christ,'  and  'the  good  pleasure 
that  men  should  be  saved  through  Christ.'  There  are  in  Scrip- 
ture expressions  of  precisely  the  same  meaning  relative  to  the 
pleasure  and  will  of  God  concerning  believers.  These  expres- 
sions fully  cover  as  to  their  meaning  all  we  say  of  particular  elec- 
tion, as  is  seen  from  the  passage  quoted  and  John  6,  where  we 
read:  'This  is  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one' which 
seeth  the  Son  and  believeth  on  Him,  may  have  everlasting  life.' 
These  words  not  only  treat  of  the  historical  event  but  also  of 
the  eternal  will,  pleasure  and  counsel  of  God,  which  govern  the 
history  of  those  whom  God  has  set  apart  and  ordained  to  eternal 
life.  He  who  believes  has,  accordingly,  eternal  life  on  the 
strength  of  the  eternal  will  of  God  and  His  decree  of  election, 
as  is  seen  from  the  passage  quoted:  'This  is  the  will  of  Him,  etc' 
The  only  alternative  remaining  is  one  which  only  a  demented 


496  Intuitu  Fidei. 

person  can  choose,  that  believers  have  eternal  life,  but  without 
the  purpose  and  pleasure  of  God  as  controlling  factors  in  the 
accomplishment  of  this  result."     (Page  98.) 

"The  proposition  that  believers  have  been  elected  to  eternal 
life  agrees  with  Scripture  neither  in  phraseology  nor  in  sub- 
stance." The  Wuertemberg  fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord answer:  "In  this  Huber  manifestly  contradicts  both  Scrip- 
ture and  the  Formula  of  Concord.  For  according  to  the  revealed 
will  of  God,  which  we  have  ascertained  from  the  Scriptures,  God 
has  elected  to  eternal  life  believers  alone,  and  rejected  unbe- 
lievers. Therefore  the  Formula  of  Concord  has  expressed 
the  sense  of  the  Church  in  the  following  manner:  'God  has 
decreed  in  His  eternal  counsel,  that  He  will  save  no  one  except 
those  who  acknowledge  and  truly  believe  in  His  Son  Jesus  Christ.' 
The  same  sense  is  expressed  in  the  Declaratio:  'The  eternal 
counsel  or  predestination  of  God,  that  is  His  ordination  unto  sal- 
vation does  not  embrace  both  good  and  evil,  or  believers  and 
non-believers,  but  only  the  children  of  God  (that  is  believers*), 
who  have  been  ordained  to  eternal  life  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world  was  laid.'  These  words  no  sane  person,  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  his  powers  of  discernment,  can  apply  merely  to  the  end 
and  issue  of  man's  earthly  history.  Hence  it  is  manifest  that 
these  monstrosities  of  Huber  can  not  be  tolerated  in  orthodox 
schools.  They  are  in  conflict  with  Scripture  and  Symbol." 
(Page  99.) 

"Huber  plainly  contradicts  the  Book  of  Concord,  when  he 
denies  the  election  of  believers  on  the  part  of  God  and  charges 
the  advocates  of  such  election  with  Calvinism  and  Pelagianism, 
and  when  he  denominates  as  a  vanity  of  vanities  the  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Book  of  Concord:  God  has  decreed  in  His  eternal 
counsel  that  He  will  save  no  one  save  those  who  acknowledge  His 
Son  Jesus  Christ  and  truly  believe  in  Him."     (Page  112.) 

Huber,  in  this  respect  the  precursor  of  Missourian  reformers, 
had  w-ritten:  "It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  the  Book  of 
Concord  expressly  warns  us,  not  to  derive  election  from  the  fore- 
knowledge of  God  or  let  the  fact  of  divine  foreknowledge  influ- 
ence our  definition  of  election."  The  Wuertemberg  theologians 
answer:   "Those  words  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  which  Huber 


*  Let  every  one  bear  in  mind  this  authentic  interpretation  of  the 
passage  in  question.  The  Missouri  Synod  at  one  time  desired  to  make 
it  a  principle  and  definition! 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  497 

quotes  merely  prohibit  a  prying  on  our  part  into  mysteries  known 
only  to  God,  notably  the  endeavor  to  ascertain  which  of  the 
called  will  or  will  not  believe.  But  that  in  a  definition  of  the 
act  of  election  the  foreknowledge  of  God  is  to  be  left  out  a& 
one  of  the  factors  to  be  considered,  Huber  will  not  be  able  to- 
prove  from  the  Book  of  Concord.  For  as  Paul  in  Rom.  8,  29,. 
deduces  predestination  from  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  so  alsO' 
the  Book  of  Concord  mentions  the  foreknowledge  of  God  in  its 
definition  of  the  act  of  God  and  deduces  from  it  election,  accord- 
ing to  the  example  of  Paul.  His  words  read  thus:  'God  in  His 
counsel,  purpose  and  foreordination  not  only  secured  salvation 
in  the  abstract,  but  also  graciously  foreknows  each  and  every 
person  which  is  to  be  saved  through  Christ  (clementer  prsescivit), 
elected  to  the  laying  hold  of  salvation,  etc."     (Page  112.) 

"Huber  simply  rejects  the  particular  election  of  believers 
which  is  explicitly  taught  in  the  Book  of  Concord  by  deductions 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures.  We  consider  all  further  discussion 
with  him  as  fruitless,  because  he  does  not  yield  to  the  clear  tes- 
timonies of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Book  of  Concord,  even  though 
he  may  not  dare  to  contradict  their  letter.  We  have  no  hope 
of  coming  to  an  agreement  with  him  in  this  or  any  other  article^ 
for  the  reasons  mentioned."     (Page  150.) 

Huber  had  written:  "The  Book  of  Concord  presupposes  the 
grace  of  God  and  the  merits  of  Christ  as  the  complete  cause  of 
election  (plane  totalem)."  The  Wuertemberg  theologians  an- 
swered: "With  these  words  Huber  drops  faith  or  the  consid- 
eration of  faith  from  the  act  of  election  and  seeks,  with  bold 
insolence,  to  make  the  Book  of  Concord  the  panoply  of  his 
error,  whereas  the  Book  of  Concord  in  declaring  the  merits  of 
Christ  and  the  grace  of  God  to  be  the  complete  cause  of  election 
does  not  want  to  eliminate  faith  or  the  consideration  of  faith, 
but  the  merits  of  men.  For  as  the  decree  of  justification  and 
salvation  is  not  consummated  (absolvitur)  through  the  grace  of 
God  and  the  merits  of  Christ,  but  takes  faith  in  as  its  completing 
link,  thus  the  decree  of  election  is  not  consummated  without  faith 
or  the  consideration  of  faith.  Therefore  the  Book  of  Concord 
plainly  states,  that  God  has  decreed  that  He  would  save  no  one 
except  those  who  believe  in  Jesus  Christ."  (Page  182.)  "We 
teach  according  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  Book  of  Concord 
that  it  is  one  and  the  same  act,  one  and  the  same  decree  of  salva- 
tion, that  God  wills  that  all  men  should  be  saved  by  faith  in 


498  hituitu  Fidei. 

Jesus  Christ.  This  act  is  not  constituted  of  two  elements,  the 
grace  of  God  and  the  merits  of  Christ,  but  of  three,  the  grace 
of  God,  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  the  consideration  of  faith." 
(Page  198.) 

Again  and  again  the  Wuertemberg  theologians  repeat  that 
"the  particular  election  of  believers  is  taught  both  in  the 
Bible  and  in  the  Book  of  Concord"  (page  68),  that  "the  doctrine 
and  the  term  election  of  believers  must  not  be  dropped,  since 
both  matter  and  form  are  thus  in  agreement  with  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures and  the  Book  of  Concord"  (page  101) ;  that  "Ruber's  opin- 
ion of  election,  according  to  which  he  excludes  the  consideration 
of  faith  from  the  eternal  act  of  God,  is  an  overturning  of  the 
particular  election  of  believers  which  is  taught  most  plainly 
in  the  Scriptures  and  the  Book  of  Concord"  (page  110);  that 
"Ruber's  universal  election,  from  the  definition  of  which  the  con- 
sideration of  faith  is  left  out  as  a  constituent  element,  overturns 
the  particular  election  of  believers  which  the  teaching  of  the 
Book  of  Concord  estabhshes"  (page  112);  that  "Huber  flatly 
contradicts  the  Word  of  God  and  the  Book  of  Concord  by  aban- 
doning and  excluding  particular  election"  (page  161);  that  "the 
doctrine  of  election  is  not  new,  but  agrees  closely  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures  as  well  as  the  Book  of  Concord"  (page  206),  etc. 

Such  are  the  declarations  of  the  theologians  of  Wittenberg, 
Rostock  and  Tuebingen  concerning  the  right  interpretation  of 
the  eleventh  article  and  the  question,  whether  the  election  taught 
in  the  Book  of  Concord  refers  to  believers  in  Jesus  as  such 
or  not.  Such  is  the  unanimous  testimony  of  these  foremost 
fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  concerning  the  definition 
which  the  original  Church  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  recog- 
nized as  her  own  and  found  clearly  and  emphatically  expressed 
in  her  Confession  received  only  a  short  time  previously. 

The  Calvinists  said:  "God  has  elected  certain  particular 
persons,  but  not  in  the  foreknowledge  or  consideration  of  fore- 
seen faith."  The  fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  replied: 
^'Truly,  God  has  elected  certain  particular  persons,  but  not 
according  to  a  mere  absolute  pleasure,  but  according  to  the 
order  of  His  revealed  will:  'Whosoever  believeth  shall  be  saved,' 
a  decree  which  has  reference  to  foreseen  believers.  This  is  taught 
in  the  Scriptures  and  this  is  the  doctrine  contained  in  our  Book 
of  Concord." 

Huber  said:   "God  has  loved  all  men,  and  therefore  elected 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  499 

all  men  to  salvation  irrespective  of  faith."  The  fathers  reply: 
"Truly,  God  has  loved  all  men  and  earnestly  desires  according 
to  His  antecedent  will  that  all  may  come  to  faith  and  be  saved; 
but  election  or  the  absolute  decree  of  the  salvation  of  certain  per- 
sons in  preference  to  others  (prae  caeteris)  embraces  only  those 
who  truly  repent  and  apprehend  and  receive  Christ  in  true  faith, 
wherefore  only  foreseen  unbelief  excludes  any  one  from  such 
election." 

Huber  as  well  as  the  Calvinists  emphasize,  that  no  consid- 
eration of  foreseen  faith  or  unbelief  has  in  the  scale  of  God's 
judgment  determined  the  decrees  of  election  or  reprobation,  and 
that  the  elect  have  received  the  blessing  of  election  not  through 
the  foresight  of  future  faith.  But  the  fathers  of  the  Formula- of 
Concord  emphasize  over  against  both  again  and  again  that 
election  to  salvation  is  inseparable  from  the  apprehension  of  the 
merits  of  Christ  in  faith,  and  dependent  upon  the  same. 

"Particular  election  of  believers,"  that  is  the  definition  of  the 
Book  of  Concord  according  to  the  testimonies  of  these  fathers 
of  Rostock,  Wittenberg  and  Wuertemberg,  testimonies  unani- 
mous and  incessantly  repeated.  They  not  merely  drop  inci- 
dentally at  one  time  and  another  an  utterance  that  might  be 
interpreted  according  to  the  definition  above  given,  but  "ex  pro- 
fesso"  they  make  the  "particular  election  of  believers"  the  chief 
theme  of  their  discussions  on  predestination  against  the  Cal- 
vinists as  well  as  against  Huber.  Nor  do  they  mention  to  Huber 
the  Book  of  Concord  incidentally,  but  advisedly  they  point  with 
their  fingers  to  chief  passages  like  these:  "God  has  decreed  from 
eternity  to  receive  unto  grace,  adoption  and  the  inheritance  of 
eternal  life  all  those  who  in  true  repentance  and  faith  would 
apprehend  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  has  decreed  in  His  eternal 
counsel  to  save  no  one  except  believers  in  Jesus  Christ." 
"Here  it  is  clearly  and  plainly  taught  in  the  Book  of  Concord," 
the  fathers  declare  times  innumerable,  "not  that  God,  in  His 
decree  of  election,  has  had  regard  to  nothing  or  has  set  apart 
for  salvation  certain  persons  without  any  consideration  of  fore- 
seen faith,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  He  has  had  careful  regard 
to  the  question,  which  among  the  number  of  the  called  would 
let  themselves  be  brought  to  faith  and  kept  in  faith  through  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  can  be  resisted  by  all  men, 
even  the  elect.  Within  the  confines  of  the  order  established  by 
God,  namely  repentance,  and  the  resistibility  of  the  grace  of  God 


500  Intuitu  Fidei. 

on  the  part  of  all  men,  even  of  the  elect,  the  final  election  of  per- 
sons to  unfailing  salvation  has  been  consummated  in  view  of  faith. 
It  extends  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  the  end  thereof 
to  all  men,  not,  however,  like  the  universal  love  of  God,  nor  does 
it  hover  over  some  particular  persons  as  an  unrevealed  mystery,, 
surrounded  by  impenetrable  darkness,  but  it  is  the  election  of 
foreseen  believers,  "clearFy  revealed  in  the  Gospel."  In  so  far 
eternal  election  has  been  clearly  revealed  in  the  Gospel  and  the 
Book  of  Life  unfolded  to  the  gaze  of  the  whole  world.  There- 
fore we  must  hold  fast  to  it  as  a  fundamental  article  of  the  true 
faith  and  orthodox  confession  that  election  to  life  embraces 
future  believers  as  such  and  has  been  consummated  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  merits  of  Christ  apprehended  in  faith.  "Par- 
ticular election  of  believers"  is  the  weighty  definition  of  Lutheran 
orthodoxy,  if  those  fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  rightly 
understood  and  interpreted  the  Confession.  All  objections  of 
Huber  to  this  definition  as  contained  in  the  Book  of  Concord, 
are  refuted  already  by  the  fathers  so  thoroughly  and  conclusively 
that  all  the  chief  arguments  of  our  Missourian  friends  in  favor 
of  their  Huberian-Calvinistic  definition  ("irrespective  of  faith") 
have  been  condemned  by  those  venerable  fathers  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  as  inconclusive  and  untenable. 

We  rightfully  ask  the  ciuestion:  Did  not  the  theologians  of 
Rostock,  of  Wittenberg,  of  Tuebingen  know  the  Lutheran  de- 
finition of  election?  Did  they  not  know,  if  such  had  been  the  case, 
that  other  Lutheran  churches  and  universities  considered  quite 
a  different  definition  as  scriptural  and  symbolical? 

If  there  had  been  a  third  party  in  the  Lutheran  Church 
which  had  found  neither  Huber's  definition,  nor  that  of  the 
fathers  of  Rostock,  Wittenberg  and  Tuebingen  taught  m  the 
Scriptures  and  confessed  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  this  third  party 
would  have  been  heard  from!  The  duty  of  speaking  out  would 
have  been  so  much  more  imperative  in  the  face  of  the  fact,  that 
three  prominent  Lutheran  universities  and  pillars  of  orthodoxy, 
Rostock,  Wittenberg  and  Tuebingen,  had  departed  so  soon  and 
abominably  from  Scripture  and  Symbol,  while  the  rest  of  the 
Church  held  fast  to  the  symbolical  definition  of  election!  Of  the 
eight  thousand  fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  surely  one-half 
were  living  at  this  time.  Of  these  the  one  or  the  other  should 
have  bestirred  himself  bravely  and  placed  the  question  of  the  right 
definition  of  election  and  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  Formula 


Did  Our  Liitheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  501 

of  Concord  into  the  right  Hght!  If  there  had  been  in  existence  at 
that  time  representatives  of  the  Missourian  definition  of  election 
who  were  of  any  account,  they  should  have  said  to  Huber :  You  are 
rig-ht  in  denying  that  the  consideration  of  faith  is  postulated  in 
the  elective  decree,  but  you  are  on  the  wrong  road,  when  you 
extend  the  elective  decree  to  all  men.  To  the  theologians  of 
liostock,  Wittenberg,  and  Tuebingen  these  representatives  of  the 
Missourian  definition  of  election  should  have  spoken:  You  are 
right  when  you  claim  that  the  Book  of  Concord  teaches  a  par- 
ticular election,  but  how  can  you  so  depart  from  Scripture  and 
Symbol  as  to  make  the  consideration  of  faith  a  constituent  part 
of  your  definition  and  render  the  decree  of  election  dependent 
upon  foreseen  faith,  since  the  Formula  of  Concord  brands  this 
'election  of  believers'  as  terrible,  blasphemous  and  not  to  be 
tolerated  in  the  Church !  To  both  they  should  have  said :  What 
you  reject  in  the  definition  of  the  Calvinists  is  its  essential  part! 
But  not  one  is  heard  from !  Among  the  thousands  of  the  fathers 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord  then  living  and  working  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  their  full  mental  power,  not  one  was  heard  to  say:  ''What? 
'particular  election  of  believers'  is  to  be  the  definition  of  the 
eleventh  article?  Since  when  has  this  transmutation  taken  place? 
Fifteen  years  ago,  and  ever  since,  the  Church  has  found  quite  a 
different  definition  of  election  in  the  Confession,  namely  the  elec- 
tion of  particular  persons  irrespective  of  faith,"  etc. 

Strange,  passing  strange!  What  sort  of  a  Church  was  that 
which  permitted,  as  soon  as  the  first  attempt  was  made,  an  alien 
■definition  of  election  to  be  foisted  upon  it,  without  stirring  a  finger 
to  resist?  Oh,  if  Missouri  had  only  a  few  witnesses,  only  a  few 
faithful  witnesses  of  that  time,  who  after  the  adoption  of  the 
■eleventh  article  had  declared  in  unambiguous  language  that  the 
F'ormula  of  Concord  had  not  established  the  particular  election  of 
believers  as  the  orthodox  definition  of  election.  If  only  one  or  the 
other  of  those  theologians  of  acknowledged  orthodoxy  and  of  the 
fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  had  entered  a  protest,  so  that  an 
appeal  could  be  taken  to  him,  and  it  could  be  said:  That  faithful 
man  stood  in  a  time  of  general  apostasy  like  a  wall  and  testified: 
Huber  trifles  with  his  universal  election,  but  the  men  of  Rostock, 
Wittenberg  and  Tuebingen  trifle  also  with  their  particular  elec- 
tion of  believers,  or  their  election  in  view  of  faith,  for  what  they 
consider  a  revelation  of  election  in  the  Gospel  is  not  election  at 
all,  but  merely  a  part  of  the  universal  order  of  salvation,"  etc.    But 


502  Intuitu  Fidei. 

no  one,  no  one  of  those  who  in  the  outset  had  signed  and  advo- 
cated the  Formula  of  Concord — and  thousands  were  yet  Hving — 
made  himself  heard  and  sounded  forth  the  Missourian  (N.  B. 
Calvinistic)  definition  of  election  as  that  of  the. Symbol.  All  take 
their  stand  with  the  men  of  Wittenberg  and  Tuebingen  and  testify 
with  one  accord:  Election  of  believers  is  the  definition  of  the 
Book  of  Concord.  Such  is  every  declaration,  every  testimony 
of  those  faithful  fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Not  one 
knows  aught  else.  And  notwithstanding  all  this  their  definition 
is  not  to  be  looked  upon  by  us  as  that  of  the  Church  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  nor  of  the  Book  of  Concord  over  against  the  Calvin- 
istic and  Huberian  definitions? 

Has  there  ever  been  a  symbol  which  has  been  so  treated? 
There  has  been  composed  an  eleventh  article  in  the  Epitome 
and  Declaratio,  which  has  been  signed  by  no  fewer  than  eight 
thousand  theologians  as  their  confession  of  faith  in  hundreds  of 
larger  and  smaller  countries  and  cities  all  over  Germany.  A  few 
years  later  an  ugly  controversy  arises  on  account  of  this  eleventh 
article.  Some  vagrant,  one  Huber,  opiues  that  there  is  found  in 
the  Book  of  Concord  an  "election  without  the  consideration  of 
faith."  All  over  Germany  fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
arise  in  multitude,  who  one  after  the  other  testify:  "The  defini- 
tion of  election  which  is  found  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  is  not  an 
election  according  to  the  mere  pleasure  of  God  and  without  re- 
gard to  faith,  but  an  election  of  believers  in  Christ  or  an 
election  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  future  faith."  All 
the  fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  who  take  a  part  in  the 
controversy,  joyfully  agree  and  confirm  that  the  definition  of  elec- 
tion contained  in  the  Book  of  Concord  does  not  embrace  sinners 
without  faith  as  such,  neither  all  according  to  Huber,  nor  some, 
according  to  the  Calvinists,  but  only  future  believers  as  such.  The 
whole  Lutheran  Church  is  a  unit  with  respect  to  this  point  since 
the  adoption  of  the  Formula  of  Concord;  and  whereas  already; 
since  the  year  1580  testimonies  occur  in  plenty  which  find  the 
election  of  believers  taught  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  there  is 
not  a  single  statement  by  any  prominent  theologian  or  father 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord  which  finds  in  the  Symbol  adopted 
by  the  Church  the  definition  of  the  Missourians:  election  irre- 
spective of  faith!  This  curious  discovery  was  reserved  for  our 
enlightened  nineteenth  century.  Or  can  St.  Louis  drag  forth  a 
single  declaration  relative  to  the  definition  of  election  given  in 


Did  Our  Lutheran  Fathers  Depart,  Etc.  503 

the  Book  of  Concord?  Can  St.  Louis  name  a  single  theolo- 
gian who  has  claimed,  that  this  is  the  definition  of  election  as 
found  in  the  Book  of  Concord:  Particular  election  of  certain 
persons  without  regard  to  faith?  Let  St.  Louis  name  such  a 
father  of  the  Formula  of  Concord!  We  have  summoned  many 
of  them  as  witnesses  for  our  side.  If  Missouri  has  counter-wit- 
nesses with  reference  to  this  point,  they  should  not  remain  voice- 
less. Let  it  name  the  fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  to  us, 
who  have  made  utterances  on  the  eleventh  article  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  and  found  the  Missourian  definition  in  the  same.  The 
contrast  between  Calvinism  and  Huberianism  furnished  sufficient 
opportunity  to  make  declarations  on  the  definition  of  election  as 
found  in  Scripture  and  Symbol.  If  the  original  Church  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord  had  understood  its  eleventh  article  in  the 
sense  of  the  Missourians,  and  recognized  the  Missourian  defini- 
tion as  orthodox,  it  would  have  been  impossible  that  twelve  years 
later  the  whole  Church  should  either  have  forgotten  or  treated 
with  indifference  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  Confession  and 
the  orthodox  definition! 

The  question  at  issue  is  one  of  honesty  and  love  of  historical 
truth.  Whoever  believes  the  election  of  believers  to  be  a  false 
conception  of  the  doctrine  of  election,  is  at  liberty  to  prove  his 
opinion  from  the  Scriptures.  We  Lutherans  shall  be  ready  for 
the  fray  also  when  waged  on  this  line.  But  as  regards  the  defi- 
nition of  election  as  furnished  by  the  Symbol  of  the  Church, 
there  are  extant  testimonies  and  documents  concerning  the 
authentic  definition  of  the  very  Church  that  had  adopted  the  Con- 
fession and  made  it  her  own.  This  direct,  authentic  interpreta- 
tion of  the  original  fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  cannot 
be  misunderstood  or  misconstrued.  A  person  may  like  it  or 
not,  may  find  it  strange  or  not,  but  there  is  no  room  for  doubt. 
The  question  is:  1.  Whether  the  fact  shall  be  looked  honestly 
in  the  face  or  not,  particularly  whether  Missouri  has  the  hon- 
esty to  do  this;  2.  Whether  in  spits  of  the  historical  fact  of 
this  authentic  definition  the  claim  shall  continue  to  be  made  that 
the  Church  had  a  different  definition  of  election  from  what  the 
fathers  claim  she  had  and  expressed  in  the  Boolt  of  Concord;  3. 
If  the  Church  at  that  time  found  generally  that  definition  in  the 
Symbol  which  the  theologians  of  Rostock,  Wittenberg  and  Wuer- 
temberg  maintained  and  advocated  over  against  Huber  as  that 
of  the  Symbol,  whether  it  is  honest,  notwithstanding  this  fact,. 


504  Intuihi  Fidei. 

to  interpret  the  Symbol  differently  and  to  accuse  those  who  inter- 
pret it  as  did  these  fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  with  a 
departure  from  the  symbolical  definition.  Let  Missouri  answer! 
But  it  will  probably  make  silence  the  chief  weapon  of  its 
strategy.  It  will  pass  over  in  silence  the  historical  and  authentic 
interpretation  of  the  eleventh  article,  as  it  is  found,  explicitly  and 
clearly,  in  the  documents  and  has  now  been  brought  to  the  lighl 
of  day.  It  must  admit  to  itself  that  the  voice  of  these  theolo- 
gians of  Rostock,  Wittenberg  and  Tuebingen,  Leipzig  and  Mar- 
burg was  not  a  private  utterance  in  discord  with  the  universal  faith 
of  the  Church,  but  the  true  voice  of  the  original  Church  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord.  This  consciousness  Missouri  will  have  in 
its  bosom,  but  Missouri  will  take  care  not  to  admit  it,  as  honesty 
requires.  It  will  take  care  not  to  say  publicly:  "The  fathers 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord  have,  it  must  be  admitted,  bequeathed 
to  posterity  the  authentic  declaration  that  this  is  the  definition 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord:  God  has  elected  to  salvation  fore- 
known believers  in  Christ."  St.  Louis  would  be  compelled 
first  to  become  honest  in  this  matter  and  abandon  its  vain  glory 
as  a  Reformer.  This  it  will  not  do  and  hence  its  only  answer 
to  the  authentic  interpretation  of  the  fathers  is  SILENCE! 


PART  IIL 

IS  THE  DOCTRINE  THAT  GOD  HAS  ELECTED  MEN  TO  SALVATION  IN 
VIEW  OF  FAITH  FOUND  IN  OUR  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION? 


I. 

We  answer:  Yes,  it  is  found  therein.  Missouri  answers: 
No,  it  is  not  found  therein,  but  the  opposite  doctrine  that  God 
has  elected  to  salvation  sinners  as  such. 

It  is  granted  that  the  question  as  formulated  by  us,  does  not 
determine,  whether  answered  in  the  negative  or  affirmative,  the 
truth  and  divine  origin  of  the  doctrine  in  question.  These  can 
be  established  only  by  an  appeal  to  Scripture.  It  would  be 
papistic  sophistry  to  make  a  syllogism  like  the  following  the 
basis  of  our  doctrinal  position:  All  doctrines  contained  in  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Confessions  are  unquestionably  of  divine 
origin ;  the  doctrine  that  particular  election  to  salvation  embraces 
only  believers  is  contained  in  the  Lutheran  Confession;  there- 
fore also  this  doctrine,  like  all  other  Lutheran-symbolical  doc- 
trines, is  divine  truth.  Such  argumentation  would  be  worthy 
of  Rome. 

But  when  the  question  is  raised,  whether  a  certain  doctrine 
is  confessed  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  the  decision  depends  on 
the  Confession.  This  is  now  the  issue  between  us  and  Mis- 
souri. If  Missouri  should  desire  to  leave  this  article  out  of 
consideration  and  take  its  stand  against  us  Lutherans  only  on 
the  basis  of  the  Scriptures,  no  one  would  offer  the  slightest 
objection.  But  as  long  as  it  makes  the  Confession  its  point  of 
vantage  and  claims  for  its  alien  doctrine  symbolical  dignity  and 
home  privileges  in  our  Church,  it  must  permit  others  to  subject 
such  claims  to  a  thorough  historical  investigation. 

Since  the  Lutheran  Church  has  had  her  Book  of  Concord, 
the  doctrine,  that  God  has  set  apart  for  eternal  life  believers 
in  Christ  or  that  election  has  taken  place  in  view  of  faith,  has 
been  recognized  as  distinctively  Lutheran  by  friend  and  foe. 
Missouri   itself  is  authority  for  the  fact  that  the   dogmaticians 

(505) 


506  Intuitu  Fidei. 

of  our  Church  have  recognized  this  doctrine  as  the  doctrine  of 
their  Church  and  that  they  have  come  to  its  defense  both  against 
Calvinist  and  papist.  Tlie  force  of  this  historical  fact  they  seek 
to  evade  by  setting  up  the  claim  that  these  "Intuitu  Fidei  theo- 
logians" have  departed  from  Scripture  and  Symbol.  For  year^l 
the  massive  proof  has  accumulated  that  the  Church  of  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  understood,  in  precisely  the  same  manner 
throughout,  the  Confession  approved  and  signed  by  her,  and  par- 
ticularly this  eleventh  article.  This  fact  is  of  the  utmost  import- 
ance in  securing  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  eleventh  article. 
The  Church  which  adopts  and  approves  a  Confession,  has  the 
unquestioned  right  of  furnishing  an  authentic  interpretation  of 
the  same.  The  attempt,  now  after  three  centuries,  to  find  a 
sense  in  the  Confession  which  is  diametrically  opposed  to  that 
which  the  Church  herself  found  in  her  symbol,  according  to  her 
own  unanimous  testimony,  and  which  has  been  set  forth  and  con- 
fessed as  her  faith,  is  a  proceeding  so  ridiculous  as  to  be  worthy 
only  of  a  prestidigitator  or  of  a  Crypto-Calvinist.  That  merely  for 
lack  of  time  no  attention  is  paid  to  the  authentic  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Confession  which  the  hand  of  history  has  brought 
out  clearly,  our  opponents  do  not  expect  us  to  believe.  There 
are  other  causes  for  their  assiduous  silence  relative  to  the  testi- 
mony of  history,  while  the  true  issue  is  clouded  by  their  clam- 
orous appeals  to  Scripture. 

Why  is  not  our  challenge  accepted  to  show  that  the  original 
Church  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  did  not  find  an  election  of 
believers  at  all  in  the  Confession,  or  that  she  departed  from  the 
Symbol  on  which  she  had  just  stamped  her  approval?  From 
our  standpoint  the  affair  is  devoid  of  dif^culty.  The  mere  as- 
sumption that  the  later  Lutheran  Church  has  been  in  a  state  of 
uncertainty  about  a  question  of  such  far-reaching  consequences, 
and  which  for  years  had  been  tried  in  the  crucible  of  controversy; 
that  the  Church,  furthermore,  should  have  assailed,  at  least  in 
one  important  point,  the  doctrine  of  the  Symbol  and  defended 
a  doctrine  branded  in  the  Symbol  itself  as  blasphemous  —  the 
mere  assumption  itself  lacks  the  feeble  strength  of  probability. 
But  when  the  evidence  is  brought  that  the  Church  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord  had  essentially  the  same  understanding  of 
the  Confession  as  the  later  Church,  and  when  the  testimonies 
containing  this  evidence  are  characterized  by  such  clearness  of 
statement  and  unanimity  of  endorsement  as  to  remove  the  authen- 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         507 

tic  interpretation  of  the  Church  of  that  time  completely  from  the 
sphere  of  uncertainty  and  speculation,  can  it  still  be  possible  to 
maintain  in  all  sincerity  that  only  the  later  theologians,  denounced 
as  "Intuitu  Fidei  theologians,"  have  departed  from  the  Confes- 
sion, inasmuch  as  their  definition  is  alleged  to  differ  widely  from 
that  of  the  original  fathers? 

No,  gentlemen,  the  doctrine  of  election  which  the  later  dog- 
maticians  maintained  and  defended  as  pure  doctrine  the  fathers 
themselves  found  in  the  Symbol  when  they,  in  the  year  1580, 
presented  it  to  all  the  world  with  eight  thousand  signatures 
affixed  to  it.  This  they  have  told  us  themselves  in  hundreds  of 
writings.  And  yet  this  doctrine  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Symbol 
but  the  one  opposed  to  it?  Not  the  Lutheran  defense  of  the 
Intuitu  Fidei  but  the  Calvinistic  perversion  of  it  is  to  be  but- 
tressed by  the  Formula  of  Concord?  Oh,  has  there  ever  been 
a  church  suffering  from  such  a  visitation?  But,  we  hear  the 
objection  murmured,  where  is  the  Intuitu  Fidei  found  in  the 
Symbol?  We  may  read  the  Confession  as  often  as  we  please 
and  not  a  syllable  of  such  an  expression  do  we  find  on  its  pages. 
What  a  stratagem!  Simply  because  this  or  similar  expressions 
used  by  the  dogmaticians  and  fathers  of  the  Church  is  not  found 
in  the  Symbol,  the  doctrine  itself,  we  are  told,  can  not  be  found 
in  it  either.  What  would  become  of  our  Lutheran  Church, 
what  of  our  Christian  Church,  if  we  should  compare  our  ecu- 
menical and  Lutheran  Confessions  with  the  Scriptures  and  apply 
the  rule:  If  such  and  such  expressions  are  not  found  in  the 
Scriptures,  the  doctrine  they  clothe  is  not  scriptural?  Such  a 
principle  would  give  Missouri  an  opportunity  for  a  reformation 
still  more  sweeping,  for  many  a  doctrine  known  by  a  name  not 
of  scriptural  but  of  historical  and  dogmatical  origin,  such  as 
"Trinity,"  "Original  Sin,"  "Means  of  Grace"  and  others,  would 
be  swept  by  such  a  pseudo-retormation  out  of  the  Church. 

Let  us  go  back  a  few  years  and  consider,  in  what  manner 
Missouri  defended  its  doctrines  of  the  invisible  church  and  the 
ministerial  office.  Were  the  terms  Missouri  thought  necessary 
to  use  for  the  establishment  of  its  doctrine  found  in  the  Con- 
fession? Or  did  Missouri  at  that  time  recognize  the  principle 
that  no  doctrine  could  be  scriptural  as  long  as  the  terms 
in  which  it  is  set  forth  are  not  found  in  Scripture?  Where  in 
the  Bible  do  we  find  the  terms:  "Invisible  Church,"  or  "Trans- 
fer   of   the    Ministerial    Office    from    the    Congregation    to    the 


•508  Intuitu  Fidei. 

Individual"?  No,  at  that  time  this  principle  was  vicious  and 
could  not  be  accorded  recognition,  for  what  would  have  become 
of  Missouri,  if  the  absence  of  the  terms  from  the  Symbol  were 
tantamount  to  a  symbolical  anathema  of  the  cqnception  which 
the  terms  were  intended  to  clothe?  But  to-day  the  wind  is 
blowing  from  a  different  quarter,  so  that  the  "Wachende  Kirche" 
also,  the  official  organ  of  the  Bufifalo  Synod,  now  holds  the  mirror 
up  bef6re  the  face  of  Missouri  and  says:  O  how  much  you 
have  become  like  Bufifalo  in  occupying  the  same  standpoint  that 
we  always  have  maintained  but  you  have  been  pleased  to  assail; 
we  are  glad  that  you  now  heartily  agree  with  us  in  principle; 
let  us  hope  that  you  will  soon  agree  with  us  in  the  application 
of  this  principle  to  the  doctrines  still  mooted  between  our  respec- 
tive synods,  as  we  are  practically  agreed  in  its  application  to  the 
Intuitu  Fidei. 

Well,  we  opponents  of  Misouri  shall  not  be  dismayed  nor 
led  astray  by  such  Neo-Missourian  pranks.  We  readily  admit: 
The  expression  Intuitu  Fidei  is  not  found  in  the  Svmbol,  but  the 
matter  which  has  received  in  this  expression  its  churchly  and 
dogmatical  label,  stands  out  clearly  in  our  Book  of  Concord. 
True,  such  proof  ought  not  to  be  necessary  at  all  for  Luth- 
erans, they  should  know  what  has  been  accepted  as  a  matter 
of  fact  ever  since  the  adoption  of  the  Book  of  Concord  three 
hundred  years  ago  is  a  historic  verity.  We  rather  fear  that 
Lutherans  who  do  not  find  this  doctrine  in  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord are  unsuccessful  in  their  quest  not  because  they  can 
not,  but  because  they  refuse  to  find  it.  But  in  order  to  be  remiss 
in  no  part  of  our  undertaking,  we  shall  show  where,  how,  and 
why  we  find,  in  common  with  the  fathers  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord  and  the  "later  dogmaticians,"  this  doctrine  taught  in 
the  Book  of  .Concord  with  absolute  clearness,  that  God  has 
elected  believers  as  such  to  eternal  life,  not  as  we  have  already 
admitted,  through  the  medium  the  theological  terms  in  which  this 
doctrine  has  become  familiar  to  us,  but  in  substance.  That  we 
lean  upon  the  testimonies  of  the  original  signers  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  and  furnish,  in  the  main,  no  other  arguments  than 
those  used  for  the  same  purpose  by  the  original  authors  and 
signers  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  will  not  be  made  a  charge  against 
us  by  men  of  probity  and  justice. 


/s  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  A/efi,  Etc.         509- 

II. 

When,  in  the  following  pages,  we  seek  to  prove  that  the 
doctrine  which,  in  the  expression,  "Election  has  taken  place 
intuitu  fidei,"  has  become  the  shibboleth  of  the  Church,  is,  in 
substance,  found  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  we  have  in  mind  pre- 
eminently the  decree  of  God  regarding  our  salvation.  We  are 
well  aware  that  the  form  of  doctrine  or  mode  of  presentation 
(tropos  paideias)  has  not  always  been  the  same  in  our  Church; 
we  also  admit  that  there  are  differences  of  form  even  among 
theologians  of  the  same  epoch.  We  are  of  the  opinion,  however, 
that  we  have  neither  call  nor  inclination  to  write  a  historical 
treatise  of  the  progress  and  the  changes  which  the  formal  devel- 
opment of  this  doctrine  exhibits.  The  circumscribed  condition 
of  both  means  and  talents  suggests  the  limitation  of  our  energy 
to  the  important  chief  question,  whether  the  Lutheran  Confes- 
sion, in  keeping  with  the  teaching  of  our  dogmaticians,  makes 
the  final  decree  of  salvation  dependent  upon  foreseen  faith 
in  Christ,  or  whether  it  is  confined  to  the  hidden  will  and  abso- 
lute purpose  of  God,  so  that  no  difference  entered  into  consid- 
eration (even  as  to  foreseen  faith  or  unbelief)  between  those  who 
were  elected  and  those  who  failed  of  election,  but  merely  a 
libitum,  a  good  pleasure,  or  choice  of  God. 

This  very  point  is  the  radical  difference  between  the  doctrine 
of  election  in  view  of  faith  (i.  e.  in  view  of  the  merits  of  Christ 
apprehended  by  faith)  and  the  doctrine  of  an  unconditional,  arbi- 
trary election.  God  has  ordained  the  elect  to  eternal  life  accord- 
ing to  an  ordinate  will,  therefore  He  has  considered  not  only 
His  mercy  and  the  merits  of  Christ,  but  at  the  same  time  the 
order  of  repentance  and  faith,  nor  has  He  neglected  to  consider 
what  sinners,  in  the  order  established  for  all,  namely  repentance 
and  faith,  avail  themselves,  through  the  gracious  operation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  of  the  saving  merits  of  Christ,  and  what  sin- 
ners resist  such  operation. 

In  this  the  parties  to  the  controversy  are  agreed  that  God's 
will  to  save  sinners  is  both  universal  and  particular.  Both  sides 
of  His  will  are  clearly  taught  in  the  Scriptures:  1)  "God  wills 
that  all  men  should  be  saved";  2)  "Few  are  chosen."  The  ques- 
tion now  is,  whether  the  universal  will  and  this  particular  decree 
are  to  be  taken  as  moving  along  parallel  lines  incapable  of  con- 
verging, separated  by  an  impassable  chasm,  by  an  insoluble,  mys- 


510  Intuitu  Fidei. 

terious  difference,  yea  contradiction.  Or  whether  the  mystery  of 
election  has  not  been  explained  in  the  Word  so  far  as  to  furnish 
us  an  article  of  faith.  Such  an  article  of  faith  we  have.  It  is 
this:  "Between  the  universal  will  of  God,  which  embraces  all 
men,  and  the  particular,  final  decree  of  salvation  there  exist,  as 
the  connecting  link,  according  to  the  order  of  salvation  established 
for  all,  foreseen  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ.  These  form  the 
revealed  bridge  over  the  gulf,  in  many  respects  still  full  of  mys- 
tery. They  mediate  between  the  universal  will  of  God  and  the 
particular  election  of  individuals,  relatively  few  in  number,  to 
the  certain  attainment  of  salvation.  But  Missouri  alleges  that 
Scripture  and  Confession  know  nothing  of  God's  foreknowledge 
of  repentance  and  faith  as  being  in  a  measure  a  key  to  the 
particular  decree  of  election  and  a  subordinate  element  in  the 
universal  purpose  of  His  grace.  A  doctrine  that  places  repent- 
ance and  faith  between  the  universal  will  and  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion is  alleged,  by  mediating  between  the  mystery  of  election 
and  reason,  to  dissolve  the  former  so  that  everything  mysterious 
is  taken  away  from  the  act  of  election.  According  to  the  pro- 
visions of  election  this  act  of  God  is  claimed  to  be  primarily  the 
setting  apart  of  certain  particular  sinners  to  salvation  and  the 
attainment  of  eternal  life,  and  secondarily  the  setting  apart  of  the 
same  persons  for  all  the  means  necessary  to  the  attainment  of 
the  blessings  of  salvation,  so  as  to  include  all  things  that  secure 
to  the  subjects  of  election  the  salvation  for  which  they  have  been 
singled  out.  Scripture  and  Confession  teach,  according  to  Mis- 
souri, that  election  is  on  this  account  an  unfailing  and  in  all 
cases  definite  ordination  unto  faith,  repentance,  and  steadfastness, 
just  because  it  is  in  its  relation  to  man  utterly  without  qualifica- 
tion and  condition.  Even  the  appropriation  of  the  merits  of 
Christ,  or  the  merits  of  Christ  appropriated  in  faith,  are  not 
recognized  as  a  connecting  link  between  the  universal  will  of  God 
and  the  decree  of  salvation  which  embraces  only  a  small  number, 
but  are  considered  merely  as  the  fruit  and  result  of  a  decree 
embracing  exclusively  the  elect. 

Such  a  doctrine,  we  confess,  we  cannot  discover  either  in 
Scripture  or  Confession.  It  is  incomprehensible  to  us  that  a 
person  who  reads  either  book  without  bias,  does  not  everywhere 
find  the  opposite  doctrine.  For  what  does  the  gospel  do  but 
announce  to  men  that  God  desires  the  salvation  of  all  men 
through  the  provision  established  by  Him,  viz.  repentance  and 


Is  the  Doctrine  that   God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         511 

faith;  on  the  other  hand  also  to  declare  that  it  depends  on  the 
faith  and  repentance  of  those  who  are  called  whether  God  has 
decreed  their  salvation  or  not?  Therefore  it  is  written  clearly 
and  simply:  "Go  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature." 
{Here  the  universal  will  of  God  is  revealed  and  also  the  universal 
means  of  grace,  viz.  the  Gospel,  from  the  preaching  and  hearing 
of  which  saving  faith  can  come  to  all.)  2)  "He  who  believeth 
and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved;  but  he  who  believeth  not,  shall 
be  damned."  (Here  the  particular  decree  of  salvation  which 
covers  only  a  few  persons  is  revealed  as  depending  upon  faith 
in  the  Gospel,  so  that  every  one  who  believeth,  according  to 
God's  will  and  decree,  is  surely  one  who  shall  be  saved  and 
besides  these  no  one  else.)  As  far  as  the  universal  will  of 
God  is  concerned,  He  desires  the  salvation  of  all  men  through 
faith;  He  desires  to  bring  all  men  to  faith  through  the  Gospel, 
because  He  sincerely  desires  the  salvation  of  them  all.  But  as 
regards  the  particular  decree  of  saving  certain  persons,  it  postu- 
lates, acording  to  the  purpose  of  God  and  the  general  order  of 
salvation,  faith  in  Christ,  and  demands  the  same  as  the  condition. 
Whoever  can  not  read  this  in  the  Gospel,  is  surely  stricken  with 
blindness.  And  our  Lutheran  Confession  says  the  same  so  faith- 
fully and  decisively  that  it  is  both  ridiculous  and  sad  when  a  per- 
son can  not  see  the  woods  for  the  multitude  of  trees.  What  if  our 
Confession  does  speak  of  election  or  predestination  in  a  wider 
or  even  widest  sense ;  what  if  besides  the  final  decree  of  salvation 
this  or  that  is  included  in  the  conception  of  election?  This  much 
is  always  certain,  the  Confession  never  makes  the  decree  that 
sets  men  apart  for  divine  adoption  and  inheritance  embrace 
sinners  without  faith,  but  always  sinners  who  have  repented  and 
come  to  faith.  Election,  therefore,  according  to  the  Confession, 
is  dependent  upon  repentance  and  faith  according  to  the  fore- 
knowledge of  God.  According  to  the  revealed  order  of  salvation 
it  is  required  of  a  sinner  that  he  be  a  believer  in  Christ  before  he 
can  be  received  among  the  number  of  elect  children  and  heirs. 
Is  not  this  intended  to  be  taught  by  the  apostle  when  he  w-rites: 
''As  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  He  power  to  become 
the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  who  believe  in  His  name"?  (John 
1,  12.) 

The  effort  appears  to  us  almost  ludicrous  to  prove  to  a 
Lutheran  from  the  standpoint  of  our  Confession  that  this 
and  nothing  else  is  found  in  our  Confession.     This  and  nothing 


512  Intuitu  Fidei. 

else  the  Church  which  has  received  the  Confession,  in  com- 
mon  with  the  whole  Church  since  that  time,  has  confessed  as 
her  own  and  defended  against  the  Calvinists.  And  how  can  an 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  teach  otherwise  in  view  of  what  she 
teaches  concerning  justification  by  faith?  She  teaches  that  God 
desires  to  justify  and  save  all  men,  and,  therefore,  to  bring  them 
to  faith  in  Jesus,  but  that  the  question,  which  particular  sinners- 
are  to  be  justified,  and  which  are  not,  is  decided  in  God's  will 
strictly  according  to  the  attitude  which  the  called  assume  towards 
the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ.  First  faith,  then  the  decision :  This  sin-, 
ner  shall  unfailingly  be  justified  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  As  far  as  we 
know,  not  even  Missouri  has  dared  to  let  the  act  of  justification,., 
according  to  logical  sequence,  precede  faith,  or  to  present  it  as- 
having  been  passed  upon  unbelieving  sinners.  And  as  long 
as  the  act  of  justification  is  dependent  upon  foreseen  faith,  the- 
truth  shall,  nolens  volens,  be  permitted  to  stand,  that  the  final 
decree  of  salvation  also  postulates  foreseen  faith  in  the  same- 
sense  and  for  the  same  reason.  Only  a  man  of  confused  mind 
would  dare  to  affirm :  God  has  not  decreed  concerning  this  or  that 
sinner,  "he  shall  be  justified  for  Christ's  sake,"  before  He  saw 
that  he  would  appropriate  the  merits  of  Christ;  but  God  has 
notwithstanding  decreed:  "This  and  that  sinner  shall  surely  be 
saved  before  he  looked  for  faith  or,  in  the  least,  concerned  Him- 
self about  the  appropriation  of  the  merits  of  Christ." 

But  let  us  assign  the  chief  reasons  why  the  doctrine  that  the 
final  decree  of  salvation  covers  believers  as  such,  is  found  in 
the  Confession.  We  draw  our  arguments  in  the  first  place  from 
the  fundamental  Confession,  the  Augustana,  and  the  Apology  to 
the  same,  and  secondly  from  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

I.  The  Augsburg  Confession  informs  us:  "Thus  also  the 
fathers  of  the  Church  teach.  For  Ambrose  saith:  'Thus  it  hath 
been  ordained  by  God  that  whoso  believeth  in  Christ,  shall  be 
saved.'  " 

Our  fundamental  Confession  speaks  explicitly  of  the  divine 
decree  of  salvation.  From  this  one  decree  of  salvation  recognized 
by  Scripture  and  Confession,  proceeds  the  rule  of  election: 
"Whosoever  believeth  in  Christ  shall  be  saved  and  no  other." 
Missouri  will  here  resort  to  her  favorite  subterfuge  and  say:  Not 
a  syllable  is  said  here  of  election;  justification  according  to  the 
universal  will  of  God  is  the  topic  under  consideration.  But  we 
gratefully  decline  to  accept  the  tenet,  to  which  Missourian  wisdom 


Is  the  Doctrine  that   God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         513 

has  given  birth,  that  God  has  formed  two  decrees  of  salvation 
contradictor}^  to  each  other,  namely,  in  the  first  place,  the  one  pro- 
ceeding from  His  universal  will,  which  is  to  this  effect:     "Thus 
God  has   determined   by  Himself,   that  whosoever  believeth   in 
Christ  shall  be  saved,"  and  in  the  second  place,  another  proceeding 
from  the  election  of  grace,  which  is  to  this  effect:     "Whosoever 
among  sinners  amid  the  common  multitude  shall  be  saved  accord- 
ing of  God's  free  purpose,  he  shall  and  must  come  to  faith  and 
persevere  therein."     Scripture  and  Confession  know  nothing  of 
this  double,  self-contradictory  decree  of  salvation.     This  unhar- 
monized  duplicity  of  the  divine  purpose  of  divine  grace  is  an 
antiscriptural  Missourian  invention,  but  entirely  in  keeping  with 
the  new  reformatory  theology  which  thrives  on  contradictions 
and  absurdities.     The  genuine  reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century 
were  not  such  fools.     If  they  presented,  in  the  sixth  article  of  the 
Augustana,  this  as  the  faith,  doctrine  and  confession  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Church  that  the  decree  of  God  in  reference  to  the  subjects 
of  salvation  necessarily  presupposed  faith,  they  did  not  establish 
in  the  article  of  election  a  doctrine  irreconcilable  with  the  former, 
but  clung  to  what  had  been  confessed  already  in  the  Augustana, 
and  said:     "In  Christ  \ve  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the 
Father,  who  has  decreed  in  His  eternal  divine  counsel  that  He 
would  save  no  one  except  those  who  truly  acknowledge  His  Son 
Jesus  Christ  and  believe  in  Him."     Manifestly  the  selfsame  decree 
of  salvation  is  under  discussion  here  as  that  of  which  the  Augus- 
tana had  predicted  the  same  thing. 

Whether  Ambrose  is  the  author  of  the  testimony  above 
quoted  or  not,  does  not  matter.  The  Symbol  makes  this  state- 
ment its  own  confession:  That  it  has  been  ordained  by  God,  or 
as  the  Latin  version  has  it:  Hoc  constitutum  est  a  deo,  i.  e.  this 
has  been  laid  down  by  God,  has  been  made  the  constitution,  as 
it  were,  of  His  kingdom  of  grace,  "that  he  who  believes  in  Christ 
shall  be  saved."  In  this  manner  God  has  revealed  His  eternal 
purpose,  counsel  and  will,  for  instance  in  passages  like  John  3, 
16;  6,  40,  of  which  the  Formula  of  Concord  expressly  declares 
that  Christ  "proclaims  in  them  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father." 
The  gracious  will  of  God  is  not  one  in  election  and  another  in  jus- 
tification, but  always  one  and  the  same  gracious  will  which  God 
has  for  all.  Just  as  God  has  ordained  in  eternity,  so  also  and  in 
no  other  way  the  provisions  of  His  plan  are  carried  out  in  time, 
and  vice  versa.     Plan  and  execution  are  not  the  same  but  the  will 


514  hituitu  Fidei. 

of  God  is  the  same  in  both.  Moreover  the  Word  'ordained'  points 
back  to  the  eternal  counsel  of  grace  concerning  all  men :  "Whoso- 
ever belicveth,  shall  be  saved."  That  God  has  made  another  decree 
whose  provisions  clash  with  those  of  the  former,  according  to 
which  certain  sinners  have  been  ordained  to  salvation  without 
regard  to  faith  is  thereby  excluded  as  a  doctrine  both  false  and 
unsymbolical.  Under  the  direction  of  Holy  Scripture  it  will  soon 
be  found  who  has  been  elected  and  ordained  to  eternal  life.  It 
is  eternally  certain  that  ordination  to  salvation  in  Christ  means 
the  same  as  to  decree  in  the  divine  counsel  to  save  in  Christ.  This 
no  true  Christian  can  deny.  "Let  a  person  therefore  search  in 
the  Scriptures  who  they  are  whom  God  in  eternity  has  determined 
to  save,  and  he  will  know  who  is  ordained  and  elected  to  eternal 
life."  (Hunnius,  Widerlegung  der  Vorrede  Ruber's  —  Refuta- 
tation  of  Ruber's  Preface,  p.  21.)  This  eternal  and  only  decree  is 
the  issue  between  the  Missourians  and  the  Lutherans  loyal  to 
the  Confession.  The  question  is:  1.  Are  there,  according  to 
the  teaching  of  Scripture,  two  decrees  in  reference  to  salvation 
which  are,  moreover,  diametrically  opposed  to  each  other,  the 
one  saying,  "Only  believing  sinners  shall  be  ordained  to  eternal 
life,"  and  the  other,"Certain  sinners  without  faith  shall  be  ordained 
to  salvation  and  incidentally  to  faith"?  And  2.  If  there  is  only 
one  decree  of  salvation,  has  foreseen  faith  been  a  condition  and 
postulate  of  the  same,  or  has  God  ordained  and  elected  to  salva- 
tion a  few  unregenerate  sinners  from  the  common  aggregate  abso- 
lutely irrespective  of  faith?  The  Confession  answers:  "It  has 
been  ordained  by  God,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Christ  shall 
be  saved." 

II.  The  Apology.  The  Augustana  having  pointed  out  the 
decree,  made  in  eternity,  which  promises  and  seals  salvation  only 
to  those  sinners  who  believe  in  Christ,  the  Apology  carries  the 
same  thought  out  more  fully.  (Cf.  Mueller,  pp.  143,  144 ;  Phila. 
ed.  p.  116  and  151.)  The  truth  is  there  set  forth  that  we  obtain 
salvation  alone  by  the  grace  of  God,  not  by  the  merit  of  our 
works.  If  God's  grace  is  universal,  as  the  Lutherans  contended, 
the  objection  readily  suggested  itself  to  the  papists:  "You 
teach  that  all  men  are  saved,  for  you  teach  that  we  are  saved 
alone  by  divine  grace  and  in  the  second  place  that  this  saving 
grace  extends  to  all,  while  on  the  side  of  humanity  there  is  no 
difference,  since  all  are  lost  under  sin  and  the  curse  of  God,  and 
any  merit  is  out  of  the  question."     Somewhere,  the  papists  con- 


Is  the  Doctrine  that   God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.  515 

tended,  there  must  be  a  difference  between  those  who  shall  be 
saved,  according  to  God's  gracious  will,  and  those  who,  according 
to  the  revealed  Word  and  will  of  God,  shall  not  and  therefore  can- 
not, be  partakers  of  salvation.  This  objection  the  Apology- 
quotes  in  the  following  words:  "Here  they  will  say:  Tf  we  are- 
saved  by  grace  alone,  what  is  the  difference  between  those  whO' 
are  saved  and  those  who  are  not  saved?  If  merit  is  not  taken  into- 
account,  there  is  no  difference  between  the  evil  and  the  just,  and  it 
follows  that  all  without  distinction  are  saved.'  This  argument  has 
induced  the  scholastics  to  invent  the  'meritum  condigni'  (merit  of 
worthiness),  for  'there  must  be  a  difference  between  those  who  are 
saved  and  those  who  are  damned.'  " 

What  reply  does  the  Apology  make  to  this  objection  of  the 
papists?  Does  it  flatly  reject  the  proposition  that  there  must  be 
a  difference  between  those  who  are  saved  and  those  who  are 
damned?  Does  it  simply  refer  to  the  word:  "Therefore  He 
hath  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy  and  whom  He  will.  He 
hardeneth,"  as  directly  applicable  to  those  lying  in  the  same  per- 
dition and  bringing  about  the  'difference'  between  them?  This 
solution  would  have  been  very  easy,  if  the  author  of  the  Apology 
had  reasoned  after  the  manner  of  a  Calvinist  or  Missourian  con- 
cerning the  divine  decree  of  salvation.  For  Missouri,  too,  makes 
the  final  decree  of  salvation  operative  among  the  aggregate  of  men 
languishing  in  a  common  doom,  and  before  a  difference  could  be 
conceived.  While  God  foresaw  all  sinners  as  lying,  without  dif- 
ference, in  the  same  condition  of  perdition  and  condemnation. 
He  has  extended  His  election  unto  salvation  only  to  a  few  and 
ordained  them  at  the  same  time  unto  all  the  means  necessary  for 
salvation!  This  unconditional  election  unto  salvation  and  unto 
the  means  has  secured  for  the  elect  the  certainty  of  salvation. 
And  secured  it  only  for  these  few!  The  results  of  the  contract 
of  divine  grace  with  the  human  heart  have  not  been  considered, 
but  according  to  His  free,  unconditional,  arbitrary,  mysterious 
'hidden  purpose'  He  has  had  mercy  only  upon  a  few  particular 
persons,  from  among  the  whole  mass  of  condemned  humanity, 
so  that  they  alone  with  certainty  attain  salvation.  So  Missouri 
teaches.  The  objection  first  raised  by  the  papists:  "There  must 
be  a  difference  between  those  who  are  saved  and  those  who  perish, 
has  manifestly  reference  to  the  decreeing  will  of  God  respecting 
salvation  and  condemnation.  The  idea  is:  If  there  were  no  differ- 
ence on  the  side  of  the  human  race,  the  will  of  God  in  determin- 


516  Intuitu  Fidei. 

ing  the  destiny  of  His  human  creatures  would  be  the  same  toward 
all;  God  in  His  mercy  would  either  save  the  whole  promiscuous 
multitude,  or  He  would,  in  His  justice,  let  the  whole  multitude  of 
men  go  to  perdition.  With  Him  there  is  no  respect  of  persons. 
But  we  know  that  God  neither  saves  nor  condemns  all  sinners. 
There  must,  therefore,  be  a  difiference  between  the  two  classes 
explanatory  of  the  difference  in  the  decreeing  will  of  God  and  in 
the  concrete  results  determined  by  the  same,  namely  the  salvation 
of  the  one  class  and  the  reprobation  of  the  other.  If  God  ordains : 
This  sinner  shall  surely  be  saved,  but  that  sinner  shall  surely  be 
condemned,  there  must  be  'a  difference'  among  men  which  condi- 
tions and  demands  as  a  logical  finality  this  difference  in  the  divine 
judgment  —  a  judgment  of  grace  on  the  one  hand,  a  judgment  of 
wrath  on  the  other. 

What  now  is  the  rejoinder  of  the  Apology  to  the  objection  of 
the  papists  that  God  must  see  a  difference  among  men  when  He 
saves  one  class  of  sinners  (i.  e.  ordains  their  salvation)  but 
does  not  save  the  other  class  (i.  e.  ordain  their  salvation). 
This  proposition:  "There  must  be  a  difference  between 
those  who  partake  and  those  who  fail  of  salvation,"  the  Con- 
fession does  not  reject  as  essentially  and  radically  erroneous, 
but  confirms  the  same  as  evangelical  truth  by  stating  in  the  follow- 
ing sentences  'the  difference'  which  obtains  between  those  who 
are  saved  and  those  who  are  lost,  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 
If  God  ordains  the  salvation  of  one  sinner  and  not  that  of  the 
other,  He  takes  into  account  the  existence  of  a  revealed  dif- 
ference, but  does  not  arbitrarily  divide  a  promiscuous  multitude 
into  two  classes  by  the  fiat:  '"This  sinner  shall  be  saved,  that 
sinner  shall  not  be  saved."  In  other  words,  there  must  exist 
a  difference  separating  sinners  into  two  unequal  classes,  so 
that  God,  taking  this  difference  and ,  distinction  into  account, 
saves  the  one  class  and  not  the  other  (i.  e.  ordains  the  salva- 
tion of  the  one  class  and  not  that  of  the  other).  And  what 
constitutes  the  difference  which  produces  two  classes  of  men  in 
God's  sight?  "In  the  first  place,"  we  read,  "eternal  life  belongs 
to  those  whom  God  justifies  and  when  they  have  been  justified, 
they  are  by  that  also  God's  children  and  co-heirs  with  Christ, 
as  Paul  says  in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  8,  30:  'Whom  He  jus- 
tified them  He  also  glorified.'  Therefore  no  one  is  saved  except 
those  who  believe  the  Gospel.  But  as  our  reconciliation  with 
God  would  be  uncertain,  if  it  were  based  upon  our  works  and  not 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         517 

upon  God's  gracious  premise,  which  cannot  fail,  everything  else 
would  be  uncertain  for  which  we  wait  in  hope,  if  it  were  built  upon 
our  merits  and  works.  ...  As  often  as  mercy  is  spoken  of,  faith  in 
the  promise  must  be  added  and  this  faith  makes  the  distinction 
between  those  who  are  saved  and  those  who  are  damned,  be- 
tween those  who  are  worthy  and  those  who  are  unworthy.  For 
eternal  life  has  been  promised  only  to  those  who  have  been  recon- 
ciled in  Christ.  But  faith  reconciles  and  justifies  us  before  God, 
whenever  we  apprehend  the  promise  by  faith."  (Phila.  ed.,  p. 
116  and  151.)  (Haec  fides  facit  discrimen  inter  hos,  quibus  con- 
tingit  salus,  et  illos  quibos  non  contingit.  Fides  facit  discrimen 
inter  dignos  et  indignos,  quia  vita  eterna  promisa  est  justificatis, 
fides  autem  justificat.) 

Such  is  the  reply  of  our  Confession  to  the  objection: 
"When  God  saves  one  class  of  men  and  not  the  other,  there  must 
be  a  difference  between  them  which  determines  the  difference  in 
the  divine  verdict."  The  Confession  replies:  "Yes,  certainly 
there  is  a  difference  and  the  difference,  according  to  which  God 
either  saves  or  condemns,  has  been  clearly  revealed  at  that:  it 
is  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  "that  makes  the  difference  before  God," 
so  that  He  ordains  to  certain  justification  and  salvation  all  those 
that  believe,  but  on  the  other  hand  neither  saves  nor  ordains  the 
salvation  of  those  who  do  not  believe.  This  is  the  great  irrefra- 
gable truth  that  the  Confession  has  already  established  in  the 
Augustana:  "Thus  it  has  been  ordained  by  God  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  Christ,  shall  be  saved."  Occupying  this  firm  posi- 
tion as  the  revealed  central  truth  of  the  whole  Gospel  and  the 
doctrine  of  predestination,  which  is  a  constituent  part  thereof,  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  her  Formula  of  Concord  and  the  dogmatical 
and  polemical  developments  of  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  predes- 
tination taught  by  our  Confession,  has  time  and  again  emphasized 
and  repeated:  "Eternal  life  belongs  to  those  whom  God  justi- 
fies, and  when  they  are  justified,  they  are  by  that  also  God's  chil- 
dren and  co-heirs  with  Christ,  as  Paul  says  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  8,  30:  'Whom  He  justified  them  He  also  glorified.* 
Therefore  no  one  is  saved  except  those  who  believe  the  Gospel." 

"This  faith  makes  the  difference  between  those  who  are 
saved  and  those  who  are  damned,  between  those  who  are  worthy* 

*  When  the  term  worthy  is  used  here,  it  is  not  to  be  understood,  as  if 
the  subjective  act  of  appropriating  the  merits  of  Christ  conferred  saving 
worthiness,  but  in  the  sense  that  the  vicarious  merits  of  Christ,  which 


518  Ifituitii  Fidei. 

and  those  who  are  unworthy.  For  eternal  Ufe  has  been  prom- 
ised only  to  those  who  have  been  reconciled  in  Jesus  Christ.  But 
faith  reconciles  and  justifies  before  God,  whenever  we  apprehend 
the  promise  by  faith." 

Thus  the  individual  parts  or  links  of  the  chain  of  salvation 
hang  together  in  a  firm,  indissoluble  order.  Yet  the  sequence 
is  not  this:  1)  Decree  of  salvation  for  some  sinners;  2)  Decree 
imparting  adoption  and  inheritance;  3)  Decree  of  justification 
for  the  same  persons;  4)  Decree  of  conversion  for  the  same. 
But  this  is  the  order  according  to  the  divine  arrangement  and 
presentation:  1)  Proclamation  of  the  mercy  of  God  for  all  sin- 
ners on  account  of  Christ;  2)  Bestowal  of  such  mercy  and  the 
merits  of  Christ  upon  faith ;  3)  Decree  of  justification  and  salva- 
tion passed  upon  such  beHevers,  i.  e.  singling  out  the  same  as 
children  of  God  and  co-heirs  of  Christ.  Tlirough  faith  right- 
eousness, through  righteousness  adoption,  through  adoption  the 
inheritance  of  eternal  life.  Therefore  the  difference  in  the  eternal 
purpose  of  God  (purpose  to  save  on  the  one  hand,  purpose  to 
condemn  on  the  other)  is  to  be  traced  back  to  the  difference 
between  sinners  (believers  and  non-believers).  And  according 
to  the  revealed  Gospel  we  must  stop  at  faith  as  the  proximate 
differentiating  factor  which  conditions  the  bestowal  of  adoption 
and  inheritance.  We  dare  not,  with  Calvin  and  Missouri,  let  the 
decree  whereby  the  divine  adoption  and  inheritance  are  conferred 
upon  the  individual  take  precedence  of  foreseen  faith  in  Jesus, 
thus  making  faith  a  mere  subordinate  and  executive  element 
emanating  from  the  former.  No;  as  the  Gospel  reveals  to  us  the 
order  of  things  in  the  counsel  of  God,  there  can  be  no  question 
of  a  predestinative  decree  for  the  bestowal  of  justification,  adop- 
tion, and  inheritance,  except  upon  the  presumption  that  the  merits 
of  Christ  have  been  apprehended  in  faith.  As  regards  the  sure 
application  of  the  blessings  of  salvation  secured  by  Christ,  the 
order  is  the  same  for  all  men  at  all  times:  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  and  thou  shalt  be  justified,  a  child  of  God  and  an  heir  of 
eternal  life,  and  finally  of  glory.  No  unconditional  will  or  free 
purpose  of  God,  but  faith,  "makes  the  difference" —  in  time  as 
well  as  in  eternity,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid, 


alone  constitute  the  worthiness  or  righteousness  which  avails  before  God, 
are  imputed,  given  and  sealed  alone  unto  faith.  Not  the  subjective  act  of 
faith  but  the  objective  merits  of  Christ  imputed  to  faith  makes  the 
unworthy  worthy,  and  the  ungodly  just. 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         519 

when  the  eternal  decree  was  made  regarding  the  salvation  of  par- 
ticular persons. 

"That  is  just  the  question,"  Missouri  here  interposes,  "for 
when  the  execution  of  the  eternal  purpose  in  time  is  considered, 
the  order  surely  is  this:  "Faith,  justification,  adoption,  inheritance 
of  eternal  life;  but  when  the  eternal  purpose  is  considered, 
election  to  salvation  and  all  intermediate  stages  are  to  be  con- 
ceived as  a  unit  and  as  having  taken  place  without  regard  to 
anything  intervening.  The  Apology  speaks  only  of  the  exe- 
cution of  the  decree  of  election,  in  which  God's  will  exhibits  itself 
thus:  "He  who  believes  shall  be  justified,  adopted,  as  a  child  and 
heir  and  become  a  partaker  of  salvation."  It  does  not  treat  of 
election,  in  which  God's  will  is  exhibited  thus:  "Whatever  indi- 
viduals among  the  common  multitude  (without  regard  to 
their  repentance  and  faith)  are  infallibly  ordained  and  predes- 
tined to  salvation,  are  by  the  same  act  unfailingly  elected  also 
to  conversion,  faith,  justification,  adoption,  inheritance  of  eternal 
life,  in  short  'to  the  whole  way.'  "  The  Apology,  in  the  quota- 
tion which  has  been  adduced  as  proof  contains  nothing  about 
election,  predestination,  foreordination;  least  of  all  do  we  read 
there  that  election  unto  salvation  has  taken  place  in  view  of  future 
faith  —  intuitu  prsevisse  fidei. 

This,  in  its  way,  is  entirely  correct  and  yet  it  is  not  at  all 
germane  to  the  point,  nor  does  it  alter,  in  the  least,  the  firmly 
established  fact  which  we  urge. 

Does  Missouri  seriously  put  forth  the  claim,  that  the  con- 
ception of  "election,"  "predestination,"  "intuitu  fidei,"  etc.  must 
always  be  expressed  in  so  many  letters  and  syllables  whenever 
Scripture  or  Symbol  are  quoted  in  reference  to  the  final  decree 
of  salvation?  Let  it  apply  this  principle  first  of  all  to  the  Con- 
fession itself.  For  instance  in  the  Epitome  we  find  in  paragraph 
4  that  John  10,  28  and  Matt.  IG,  18  treat  of  predestination  or  the 
eternal  election  of  God  and  yet  none  of  these  words  are  found 
in  the  passages  quoted.  In  the  ninth  paragraph  Rom.  9,  32; 
Ez.  18,  23;  33,  11;  2  Pet.  3,  9;  1  John  2,  2  are  quoted  as  conveying 
■"the  right  meaning  of  predestination,"  yea  as  "conclusive  testi- 
monies"; and  yet  the  words  election  and  predestination  are  not 
found  in  these  passages.  A  person  may  compare  in  the  Sol. 
Declaratio,  especially  the  paragraphs  28  and  65-67,  from  which, 
according  to  our  Confession,  another  essential  part  of  our  doc- 
trine of  predestination  is  learned,  and  again  not  a  word  is  there 


520  Intiiitic  Fidei. 

found  concerning  "election  or  predestination."  Has  the  Con- 
fession departed  from  itself,  or  is  it  altogether  blind,  that  it 
does  not  know  which  are  the  'sedes  doctrinae'  of  the  doctrine  of 
election,  from  which  (among  the  three  or  twelve  or  twenty-nine 
or  who  knows  how  many  that  bear  upon  this  doctrine)  the  "right 
meaning"  of  this  article  can  be  learned?  And  can  Missouri  carry 
out  this  principle  in  reference  to  other  doctrines  that  the  "letters" 
used  as  the  title  or  connotative  term  must  be  in  evidence  in  the 
passages  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Confession  which  are  called  upon 
for  a  decision,  when  a  doctrine  is  in  dispute?  According  to  this 
principle,  where  in  Scripture  do  we  read  anything  of  "sacra- 
ments," or  "adiaphora,"  or  original  sin,  etc?  Where,  even  in 
the  Symbols,  do  we  see  anything  concerning  the  "transfer  of  the 
ministerial  office"  or  the  "invisible  church"?  With  what  success 
can  a  controversy  meet,  in  which  the  combatants  resort  to  strata- 
gems like  this! 

In  the  meantime  we  take  our  stand  upon  the  import  of  the 
testimonies  in  Scripture  and  Confession  and  the  harmonious  con- 
nection (analogy)  of  the  one  faith,  which  has  been  delivered  to 
the  saints.  Where,  therefore,  in  Scripture  or  Confession  the 
order  of  the  decree  of  election  is  treated,  we  find,  in  harmony  with 
the  same,  also  the  order  of  the  eternal  purpose.  The  one  is 
the  mirror  of  the  other.  In  the  established  order  of  the  various 
stages  of  the  way  of  salvation,  as  each  proceeds  from  the  preced- 
ing one  and  links  itself  to  it,  we  see  faithfully  mirrored  the 
order  of  the  eternal  purpose  in  the  divine  counsel.  Whoever 
does  not  believe  that  the  eternal  purpose  and  its  execution  in 
time  correspond  to  each  other,  may  continue  on  his  course  and 
reform  the  whole  revelation  of  the  counsel  of  God.  He  will  find 
out  in  due  time,  at  what  cost  such  reformation  will  be  achieved. 

The  Apology,  as  we  have  seen,  clearly  sets  forth  that  the 
salvation  of  one  sinner  and  the  condemnation  of  the  other  pre- 
supposes "a  difference"  between  them.  It  is  of  no  moment 
whether  the  Symbol  speaks,  at  this  place,  of  the  act  of  predesti- 
nation or  of  its  execution.  There  must,  there  must,  there  must 
be  a  difference  —  and  this  difference  is :  Faith  on  the  one  hand 
and  unbelief  on  the  other!  Why  must  there  be  a  difference?' 
Why  does  God  ordain  to  salvation  only  those  who  receive  Christ 
in  faith  and  not  the  others?  Why,  it  is  God's  will  according  to 
its  execution.  Correct.  And  as  far  as  the  act  of  volition,  the 
decreeing  will  is  concerned?     "That  is  a  different  thing   alto- 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.  521 

gether."  Qui  bene  distinguit,  bene  docet.  The  distinction  made 
by  Missouri  merits  indeed  the  epithet  "bene."  God's  will  and 
God's  Avill  are  said  to  be  two  different'  things  according  as  the 
decree  or  its  execution  are  considered.  Now,  in  time,  it  is  to  be 
believed,  professed  and  proclaimed  that  the  justification  and  sal- 
vation of  a  poor  sinner  depend  strictly  upon  faith  in  Jesus.  But 
when  we  speak  of  the  will  of  God  in  connection  with  the  eternal 
purpose  (election^ — predestination)  it  is  to  be  believed,  professed 
and  proclaimed  just  as  confidently  that  God  has  viewed  and 
considered  nothing  —  least  of  all  faith  or  the  appropriated  merits 
of  Christ  —  though  He' firmly  resolved  here  to  justify  and  here- 
after to  glorify  this  or  that  sinner!  God's  will,  accordingly,  is 
said  to  be  quite  different,  as  far  as  its  announcement  in  the  plan 
of  salvation  and  its  execution  are  concerned  from  what  it  is 
when  the  plan  of  salvation  was  laid  down.  Then  He  would  not 
view  faith  for  the  purpose  of  adopting  His  children  and  heirs; 
but  now  He  strictly  and  exclusively  views  faith  and  makes  tlie 
adoption  of  His  children  and  heirs  dependent  upon  it.  'Yes' 
and  'no'  can  not  more  flatly  contradict  each  other,  more  uncom- 
promisingly oppose  each  other  than  these  alleged  two  wills  of 
God.  In  the  eternal  counsel  the  rule  was:  "Without  previous 
regard  to  the  appropriation  of  the  merits  of  Christ  through  faith 
this  and  that  sinner  shall  be  elected  and  adopted  to  sonship  and 
the  inheritance  of  eternal  life."  In  the  execution,  however,  the 
rule  obtains:  "Eternal  life  is  sealed  to  no  one,  except  to  those 
who  have  made  peace  with  God  through  Christ."  But  faith 
reconciles  us  with  God  and  secures  the  righteousness  which  avails 
before  Him.  This  faith  it  is  which  makes  "the  differenece  be- 
tween those  who  are  saved  and  those  who  are  damned,  the 
worthy  and  the  unworthy."  But  how,  according  to  Missouri's 
new  reformatory  wisdom,  the  will  of  God  can,  with  respect  to 
the  same  matter,  be  so  widely  different  in  the  eternal  purpose 
from  what  it  has  been  revealed  to  be  in  the  execution,  how  it 
can  be  so  radically  in  contradiction  with  itself,  well,  that  is  another 
of  those  new  and  "wonderful  mysteries." 

There  is  a  mystery  in  this  doctrine.  It  is  an  incomprehen- 
sible mystery  that  men  of  sound  mind  can  set  up  such  nonsense 
as  an  article  of  faith.  If  they  preach  of  the  will  of  God,  as  it 
rules  in  time,  they  eagerly  emphasize  that  God  wills  to  justify 
and  save  no  sinner,  unless  by  faith  he  has  apprehended  the 
merits  of  Christ.     Not  merely  upon  the  preparation  but  upon. 


522  Intuitu  Fidei. 

the  appropriation  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  it  is  said  to  depend, 
v/hether  sinners  are  to  be  saved  and  justified  and  who  these  are. 
But  when  these  gentlemen  treat  of  the  eternal  counsel  of  elec- 
tion, in  which  God  made  the  decree  in  reference  to  the  salvation 
and  justification  of  particular  sinners,  the  foreknowledge  of  faith 
or  the  apprehended  merits  of  Christ  are  alleged  to  have  had  no 
effect  upon  the  decision,  no  regard,  no  consideration,  no  thought 
being  vouchsafed  to  the  same.  These  two  statements  can  never 
be  reconciled.  They  contradict  each  other,  —  and  can  we  be 
expected  to  believe  that  the  advocates  of  such  drivel  have  been 
called  to  work  out  a  reformation? 

Missouri's  ratiocination  in  reference  to  the  elect  appears  to 
be  the  following:  Before  time  began  God  elected  and  ordained 
this  and  that  sinner  to  salvation  and,  at  the  same  time,  unto  all 
means,  especially  unto  faith.  Faith,  however,  was  at  the  making 
of  the  decree,  not  an  essential  element  in  the  act  of  election 
but  merely  in  the  execution  of  the  same.  But  now,  in  time,  God 
reveals  His  will  with  respect  to  the  same  sinners  quite  differently, 
presenting  it  as  demanding  a  prerequisite  to  salvation  and  justi- 
fication, namely  faith.  Now  we  are  told:  "Without  faith  it  is 
impossible  to  please  God;  Lord,  Thy  eyes  look  to  faith;  beUeve 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  and  thou  shalt  be  justified  and  saved,"  etc. 
First,  God  determines  to  save  these,  His  elect,  without  consider- 
ing or  requiring  faith;  but  afterward  He  reveals  as  His  divine, 
unchangeable  counsel  and  will,  that  they  must  beheve  before 
He  can  receive  them  as  subjects  of  justification  and  salvation! 
For  "thus  God  has  decreed  in  His  eternal  counsel!"* 

HL 

The  Formula  of  Concord.  —  Before  we  enter  more  closely 
-upon  tlie  eleventh  article  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  in  order 
to  receive  from  it  the  right  answer  to  the  question  propounded  by 
us,  a  few  preliminary  remarks  may  not  be  amiss. 

First  of  all  a  remark  about  the  point  at  issue  in  view  of 
the  tribunal  before  which  we  plead  the  Confession.  The  point 
at  issue  is  not,  for  the  present,  the  doctrine   contained  in   the 


*  Note  of  translator:  The  excellent  translation  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord by  Dr.  Jacobs  is  so  much  different  from  the  German  edition  used  by 
the  author,  at  least  as  to  form,  that  it  has  been  found  impossible  uni- 
formly to   quote   from   this   standard   English   edition. 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Me7i,  Etc.         523 

Scriptures  as  the  revealed 'truth  of  God,  to  which  our  faith  is  to 
cUng  and  which,  therefore,  is  to  be  received  and  held  fast  as 
an  article  of  faith.  The  question,  on  the  contrary,  resolves  itself 
into  the  historical  consideration  of  the  sense  and  import  of  our 
Confession  in  reference  to  a  fundamental  point  of  the  doctrine 
of  election.  We  are  firmly  convinced  that  the  doctrine  of  our 
Lutheran  Confession  fully  comports  with  the  Holy  Scriptures; 
that  our  Confession  has  drawn  its  doctrine  only  from  the  revealed 
Word,  and,  in  consequence,  teaches  nothing  else  concerning  the 
point  at  issue  than  what  also  the  Holy  Scriptures  teach.  But 
our  purpose,  at  the  present  time,  is  not  to  test  and  prove  whether 
the  doctrine  which  is  contained  in  our  Confession  and  has  been 
unanimously  defended  against  the  Calvinists  by  our  Church,  is 
really  the  one  authorized  by  the  Scriptures,  and  the  opposite 
Calvinistic  and  Missourian  doctrine  really  antiscriptural.  Our 
aim  is  merely  to  demonstrate  that  our  interpretation  of  the  fun- 
damental point,  which  is  the  cynosure  of  this  protracted  contro- 
versy, is  warranted  by  and  contained  in  the  Confession,  and 
identical  with  that  of  the  later  dogmaticians.  The  doctrine,  as 
defined  by  the  later  dogmaticians,  is,  we  admit,  not  expressed 
in  the  Confession  in  their  identical  phraseology,  nor  could  that 
be  expected,  because  the  stage  of  doctrinal  controversy  at  the 
time  of  the  preparation  and  adoption  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
did  not  require  the  narrowing  of  the  definition  to  such  a  fine 
point. 

The  important  question  to  be  decided  is  this:  Has  the  decree 
of  God  which  has  been  passed  upon  particular  sinners  among  the 
common  multitude,  to  the  end  of  irrevocably  ordaining  and  deter- 
mining their  exclusive  restoration  to  grace,  adoption,  and  inherit- 
ance of  eternal  life  —  has  this  decree  been  passed  upon  believers 
as  such,  or  merely  upon  sinners  Avithout  regard  to  foreseen 
future  faith,  i.  e.  upon  sinners  without  faith?  This  decree  con- 
ferring salvation,  or  adoption  and  inheritance  is  the  primary  object 
of  the  controversy  between  Missouri  and  ourselves.  In  so  far, 
it  is  true,  as  Missouri  operates  with  Calvinistic  counter-arguments; 
for  instance,  when  the  contention  is  made  that  God  converts  man 
without  regard  to  his  conduct  and  gives  him  faith  irrespective 
of  his  conduct,  also  the  question  of  the  nature  of  converting  grace 
will  be  drawn  into  the  controversy,  as  to  whether  it  is  really  abso- 
lute, irresistible,  unconditional  and  without  a  qualification.  This 
question  as  to  the  nature  and  distinguishing  characteristics  of 


524  Intuitu  Fidei. 

saving'  and  regenerating"  grace  will  become  a  secondary  cause 
of  division  between  ourselves  and  Missouri,  inasmuch  as  Mis- 
souri would  be  forced  to  abandon  its  whole  position,  if  it  would 
come  to  recognize  its  fundamental  error  of  an  absolute,  uncon- 
ditional, arbitrary  regenerating  grace.  But  as  the  primary  point 
in  the  controversy  we  can  recognize  only  the  question  regarding 
the  eternal  purpose  and  decree  relative  to  human  salvation.  Has 
God  made  His  eternal  decree  conferring  adoption  and  inheritance 
upon  certain  sinners,  in  distinction  from  others,  depend  upon  their 
future  faith?  Or  has  He  passed  upon  certain  unregenerate  sin- 
ner in  Adam  His  elective  decree  including  faith  as  the  essential 
means  of  execution?  In  other  words:  Has  God,  as  He,  in  time, 
by  faitli  justifies  and. saves  certain  sinners  in  preference  to  others 
(prae  caeteris),  even  so  before  time  began  elected  particular  sinners 
to  adoption  and  inheritance,  in  distinction  from  others,  through 
(foreseen)  faith?  Or  has  He,  without  previously  considering 
faith,  set  apart  for  Himself  from  the  common  multitude,  partic- 
ular sinners  without  faith  as  children  and  heirs  of  eternal  salva- 
tion; elected  and  ordained  such  sinners  without  faith  to  adoption 
and  inheritance,  and  to  faith  merely  as  a  means  for  executing  His 
decree;  therefore  electing  them,  without  regard  to  faith,  unto 
adoption  and  inheritance  and  hence  also  unto  faith,  without  re- 
gard to  their  personal  conduct  toward  His  grace  which  (as  far 
as  they  are  concerned)  irresistibly  worlds  faith? 

We  afftrm  without  hesitation:  All  Scripture  testifies  most 
clearly  and  positively  that,  according  to  the  will  of  God  as  con- 
ceived in  eternity,  the  adoption  and  inheritance  of  eternal  life 
depends  upon  the  merits  of  Christ  as  apprehended  in  faith.  All 
those  who,  in  faith,  appropriate  to  themselves  the  merits  of  Christ, 
shall  be  received  unto  adoption  and  inheritance  on  account  of 
these  imputed  merits  of  Christ,  according  to  the  immutable  will 
of  God — and  besides  these  no  one!  Not  one  sinner  who  stands 
before  the  eyes  of  God  as  a  sinner  without  faith,  that  means  a 
sinner  apart  from  Christ,  a  sinner  who,  at  least  thus  far,  has  not 
appropriated  to  himself  the  merits  of  Christ — not  one  such  sinner 
without  faith,  and  just  as  long  as  he  is  considered  as  a  mere  sin- 
ner, shall  be  received  unto  grace,  adoption  and  inheritance  of 
eternal  life,  according  to  the  will  of  God.  The  preparation  of 
the  merits  of  Christ  is,  beyond  a  doubt,  intended  for  all  men; 
Christ  has  secured  His  merits  for  all  men  with  the  intention  that 
all,  without  exception,  should  be  received  unto  grace,  adoption 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.  525 

and  the  inheritance  of  eternal  Hfe.  This  saving  grace,  divine 
adoption  and  inheritance  is,  as  far  as  the  preparation  is  con- 
cerned, completely  contained  in  the  merits  of  Christ,  without 
exception,  distinction  and  variation  as  to  degree  and  method. 
But  the  preparation  alone  is  not  sufficient  when  the  actual  per- 
sonal adoption  unto  grace,  sonship  and  inheritance  is  taken  into 
consideration;  otherwise  all  men  would  actually  become  chil- 
dren of  God  as  surely  as  the  title  to  sonship  and  inheritance  has 
been  procured  for  them.  But  according  to  God's  immutable 
will  the  question  of  actual  sonship  and  inheritance  is  decided  by 
the  apprehension  of  the  merits  of  Christ  through  faith.  This 
is  the  yvill  of  God  in  reference  to  this  matter.  God  is  not  satisfied 
with  the  preparation  alone,  but  He  strictly  looks  to  faith;  He 
will  give  the  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God  only  to  those  who 
receive  His  Son  in  faith.  This  passage  sets  forth  an  everlasting 
truth:  "Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God."  Not 
only  does  God  refuse  to  receive  a  single  sinner  without  the  merits 
prepared  by  Christ,  unto  sonship,  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal 
life,  but  this  preparation  having  taken  place.  He  refuses  to  let  such 
adoption  take  place  without  the  merits  of  Christ  being  appro- 
priated through  faith.  Nor  is  He  willing  to  impute  and  transfer 
the  title  to  grace,  inheritance  and  sonship  in  spite  of  its  prepara- 
tion for  all  men,  without  this  condition  being  met.  Thus  and  not 
otherwise  does  God  exercise  His  will  according  to  the  universal 
gracious  counsel,  which  He  has  revealed  to  us.  And  besides  this 
He  has  no  other  will,  according  to  which  the  situation  would 
change  in  behalf  of  however  few;  for  God  has  no  contradictory 
wills.  (Formula  of  Concord,  XI,  34:  Hoc  enim  esset,  Deo  contra- 
dictorias  voluntates  alBngere.)  "God  is  faithful,  having  made 
known  to  us  the  mystery  of  His  will"  Eph.  1,  9) :  that  all  those  who 
believe  in  His  Son,  and  only  these,  shall,  as  believers,  be  restored 
to  grace,  sonship  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal  life.  Not  without 
faith  or  before  faith,  but  with,  in  and  through  faith  as  the  only 
means  of  appropriation,  the  merits  of  Christ,  in  which  alone  all 
grace,  sonship  and  inheritance  lies  hidden  as  the  wealth  procured 
for  us,  shall,  according  to  God's  immutable  counsel,  believers  in 
Christ  individually  be  received  and  accepted  to  grace,  sonship, 
and  the  inheritance  of  eternal  life. 

In  harmony  with  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Apology 
of  the  same,  the  Formula  of  Concord,  in  the  third  article,  "Of 
the  Righteousness  of  Faith  before  God,"  corroborates  repeatedly 


526  Inhdhi  Fidei. 

the  doctrine,  that  according  to  the  will  of  God,  as  clearly  revealed 
in  the  Gospel,  righteousness,  sonship  and  inheritance  depend  not 
only  upon  the  merits  of  Christ  as  secured  and  still  unappropriated^ 
but  as  apprehended  and  laid  hold  of.  The  principal  subject  of 
the  above  named  article  is  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  (Phila.  Ed.,  p.  501) :  "Therefore  we  beheve,  teach 
and  confess  that  our  righteousness  before  God  is,  that  God  for- 
gives us  our  sins  out  of  pure  grace,  without  any  merit,  work  or 
worthiness  of  ours  preceding,  attending  or  following,  for  He  pre- 
sents and  imputes  to  us  the  righteousness  of  Christ's  obedience, 
on  acocunt  of  which  righteousness  we  are  received  into  grace  by 
God  and  regarded  righteous.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that 
faith  alone  is  the  means  and  instrument  whereby  we  lay  hold  of 
Christ,  and  thus,  in  Christ,  of  that  righteousness  which  avails  be- 
fore God,  for  the  sake  of  which  this  faith  is  imputed  to  us  for 
righteousness.     (Rom.  4,  5.)" 

Therefore  God's  will,  eternal  purpose  and  counsel  is  summed 
up  in  the  question:  How  can  sinners  be  restored  to  grace,  son- 
ship  and  inheritance?  The  answer  of  the  divine  will  is:  "Solely 
for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  yet  not  in  so  far  as  it  has  been. 
procured  for  all  sinners,  but  only  in  so  far  it  has  been  received 
and  appropriated  in  faith.  That  God  has  another  Avill,  accord- 
ing to  which  particular  sinners  lying  with  all  the  others  in  a  com- 
mon perdition,  are  received,  notwithstanding,  into  grace,  son- 
ship  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal  life,  and  given  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  and  simultaneously  with  it  also  sonship  and  inheritance 
by  an  immutable  decree  of  salvation  having  no  regard  to  faith, — 
of  this  the  Confession  knows  absolutely  nothing.  Whenever 
the  subject  of  the  imputation  and  application  of  the  righteous- 
ness, sonship  and  heirship  which  are  in  Jesus  Christ  is  treated, 
faith  is  always  the  absolutely  necessary  link  between  the  sinner 
and  the  merits  of  Christ  which  alone  avail  before  God. 

Note  well  how  earnestly  and  diligently  this  is  repeated  in  the 
article  under  consideration.  We  read:  Concerning  the  right- 
eousness of  faith  before  God  we  unanimously  believe,  teach  and 
confess,  according  to  the  comprehensive  summary  of  our  faith 
and  confession  above  presented,  viz.  that  a  poor  sinful  man  is 
justified  before  God,  i.  e.  absolved  and  declared  free  and  exempt 
from  all  his  sins  and  from  the  sentence  of  well-deserved  condem- 
nation, and  adopted  into  sonship  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal 
life,  withoi^t  any  merit  or  worthiness  of  his  own,  also  without  all 


Is  the  Doctrine  that   God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         527 

preceding,  present  or  subsequent  works,  out  of  pure  grace,  alone 
because  of  the  sole  merit,  complete  obedience,  bitter  suffering, 
death  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whose  obedience 
is  reckoned  to  us  for  righteousness. 

These  treasures  are  offered  us  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the 
promise  of  the  Gospel;  and  faith  alone  is  the  only  means  whereby 
we  lay  hold  upon,  accept  and  apply  and  appropriate  them  to  our- 
selves. This  faith  is  a  gift  of  God,*  whereby  we  apprehend  aright 
Jesus  Christ  our  Redeemer  in  the  Word  of  the  Gospel,  and  trust 
in  Him,  that  for  the  sake  of  His  obedience  alone  out  of  grace,  we 
have  tJie  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  before  God  the  Father  are  re- 
garded godly  and  righteous,  and  are  eternally  saved.  (Phila. 
Ed.,  p.  571.) 

Again:  "Such  righteousness  (procured  by  Christ)  is  offered 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  Gospel  and  in  the  sacraments  and 
is  applied,  appropriated  and  received  through  faith,  whence  (unde) 
believers  have  reconciliation  with  God,  peace  with  God,  forgive- 
ness of  sin,  the  grace  of  God,  sonship  and  the  heirship  of  eternal 
life."     (M.  p.  G17;  Phila.  Ed.,  p.  572.) 

Again:  "Now  everything  that  belongs  to  conversion"  (for 
instance  repentance)  "belongs  likewise  to  the  article  of  justifica- 
tion, in  which  and  to  which  only  the  following  belong  and  arc 
necessary:  1.  The  grace  of  God;  2.  the  merits  of  Christ;  and  3. 
faith  which  receives  this  in  the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  whereby 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us,  whence  w^e  receive 
and  have  forgiveness  of  sin,  reconciliation  with  God,  grace,  son- 
ship  and  the  heirship  of  eternal  life."     (M.  615;  Phila.  Ed.,  p.  572.) 

Again:  "Only  the  righteousness  of  the  obedience,  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  Christ,  which  is  imputed  to  faith,  can  stand  be- 
fore the  tribunal  of  God,  namely  that  alone  for  the  sake  of  this 


*  If  a  misguided  Missourian  should  say  here:  There  we  have  it, 
'faith  is  a  gift  of  God,'  therefore  God  has  not  first  required  faith  before 
He  ordained  sinners  to  sonship  and  the  inheritance  —  the  following  may- 
serve  as  answer:  Faith  is  always  a  gift  of  God  in  justification  as  well  as  in 
the  eternal  ordination  to  sonship  and  the  inheritance,  and  in  this  eternal 
justification  no  more  than  in  justification.  But  as  it  would  be  a  most 
ridiculous  and  heretical  conclusion  to  say  that  God  can  not  require  faith  in 
justification  because  it  is  His  gift,  even  so  it  would  be  a  most  ridiculous 
and  heretical  conclusion  to  say:  Because  in  God's  eternal  election  and 
ordination  to  sonship  faith  is  a  gift  of  God,  therefore  God  can  not  ordain 
and  elect  certain  sinners  to  sonship  and  the  inheritance  in  view  of  faith. 
What  blindness  that  would  be! 


528  Intuitu  Fidei. 

obedience  the  person  is  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God  and  is 
received  into  adoption  and  heirship  of  eternal  life."  (Haeres 
vitae  aeternae  scripta;  M.  p.  617;  Phila.  Ed.  p.  579.) 

Again:  "We  obtain  salvation  in  the  same  way  as  righteous- 
iless,  yea  precisely  by  this  means  when  we  are  justified,  by  faith, 
we  receive  adoption  and  heirship  of  eternal  life  and  salvation." 
(M.  p.  621;  Phila.  Ed.,  p.  579.) 

The  declaration  already  made  in  the  Apology  that  the  grace 
of  God  and  the  merits  of  Christ  are  so  far  from  excluding  faith 
as  even  to  demand  it,  and  are  imputed  alone  to  believers  as  such, 
is  firmly  and  unambiguously  corroborated  in  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord: "The  Apology  said:  'As  often  as  mercy  is  spoken  of, 
faith  in  the  promise  must  be  added  and  this  faith  makes  the  dif- 
ference between  those  who  are  saved  and  those  who  are  damned, 
between  those  who  are  worthy  and  those  who  are  unworthy.  For 
eternal  life  has  been  promised  only  to  those  who  are  reconciled 
with  God  in  Christ.  But  faith  reconciles  and  justifies  us  before 
God,  whenever  we  apprehend  the  promise  in  faith.' "  (M.  p.  144; 
Phila.  Ed.,  pp.  225  and  226.) 

The  Formula  of  Concord  says:  "The  holy  apostle  Paul 
writes:  'Of  grace,'  'without  works,'  'not  of  works,'  all  these 
words  taken  together  mean  that  we  are  justified  and  saved  alone 
by  faith  in  Christ.  Eph.  2,  8;  Rom.  1,  17;  3,  24;  Gal.  3,  11;  Heb. 
1,1.     (M.  p.  529;  Phila.  Ed.,  p.  502.) 

"Therefore  the  expressions  of  St.  Paul,  that  we  are  'justified 
by  faith'  (Rom.  3,  28)  or  that  'faith  is  counted  for  righteousness' 
(Rom.  4,  5)  or  that  'by  the  righteousness  of  one  justification  by 
faith  came  upon  all'  (Rom.  5,  18)  are  regarded  and  received  as 
equivalents."     (M.  p.  612;  Phila.  Ed.,  p.  572.) 

"For  faith  makes  righteous  alone  in  that,  as  a  means  and  in- 
strument it  lays  hold  of  and  accepts,  in  the  promise  of  the  Gospel, 
the  grace  of  God  and  the  merit  of  Christ."  (M.  p.  620;  Phila. 
Ed.,  p.  518.) 

But  what  has  all  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  says  of  justifi- 
cation and  the  adoption  into  grace,  sonship  and  the  heirship  of 
eternal  life,  to  do  with  election?  Simply  this,  it  decides  the  main 
point  of  the  controversy — namely  the  question,  whether  God 
has  elected  and  ordained  particular  sinners  to  sonship  and  the 
heirship  of  eternal  life,  in  preference  to  others  according  to  a  mere 
hidden  pleasure  (libitum  or  propositum  arcanum)?  Or  whether, 
in  this  election  and  ordination  of  sinners  to  sonship  and  inherit- 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         529 

ance,  He  has  had  regard  to  faith  in  Christ,  receiving  future 
behevers  as  such  into  grace,  sonship  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal 
life? 

For  every  sound  bibHcal  Christian  the  will  of  God  in  refer- 
ence to  sonship  and  the  inheritance,  as  revealed  in  the  execution 
of  the  plan  of  salvation  and  the  Gospel,  is  a  faithful  reflection 
of  the  eternal  counsel  of  God  in  relation  to  sonship  and  heirship. 
The  will  of  God  when  making  His  decree  in  the  eternal  counsel, 
and  His  will  in  the  execution  of  that  decree  surely  must  be  one 
and  the  same  in  relation  to  one  and  the  same  thing.  Otherwise 
the  Gospel  and  the  carrying  out  of  the  eternal  purpose  of  God 
could  not  be  the  faithful  and  trustworthy  revelation  of  His  eternal 
will.  This  is  the  sense  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  when  we 
are  told  emphatically  and  repeatedly  that  the  true  significance  of 
predestination  must  be  sought  and  learned  in  the  revealed  Gospel. 
What  has  been  revealed  in  the  Gospel  as  the  true,  only  and  immu- 
table will  of  God  in  reference  to  sonship  and  the  inheritance,  that 
since  God  is  truthful  and  His  Word  truth,  must  have  been  the 
true  and  immutable  will  of  God  from  eternity  and  in  the  eternal 
counsel  itself.  His  will  is  in  time  what  it  is,  because  God  in  eter- 
nity has  so  conceived  and  set  it  before  Him.  Only  thus  can  the 
doctrine  of  justification  maintain  its  central  position  as  regards  all 
evangelical  doctrine  and  especially  also  the  doctrine  of  election, 
as  a  part  of  the  whole.  We  Lutherans  do  not  consider  the 
several  articles  of  the  Gospel  as  fragments,  without  connection 
and  mutual  afBnity,  which  constitute  the  one  faith  once  deliv- 
ered to  the  saints  merely  because  of  their  common  revelation 
in  the  Bible.  We  believe,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  one  faith 
delivered  to  the  saints  forms  a  harmonious  whole,  of  which  the 
constituent  parts  are  so  adjusted  as  to  possess  mutual  agreement 
and  inner  cohesion.  We,  accordingly,  do  not  see  in  the  doctrine 
of  justification  an  isolated  doctrine,  of  which  the  contents,  when 
considered  by  themselves,  are  entirely  true,  without,  however, 
casting  a  clear  and  instructive  light  upon  other  scriptural  doc- 
trines and  articles  of  faith.  No,  we  make  this  doctrine  the  norm 
and  centre  of  our  doctrinal  system,  so  that,  like  a  sun,  it  throws 
light  upon  the  whole  Scripture  and  all  articles  of  faith.  The 
Holy  Spirit  Himself  has  placed  this  doctrine  as  a  divinely 
ordained  rule  in  the  service  of  heremeneutics,  when  He  says:  "Let 
us  prophecy  according  to  the  proportion  of  faith."  (According 
to  the  analogy  of  faith ;  Rom.  12,  7) 


530  Intuitu  Fidei. 

It  is  true  that  the  several  articles  of  the  Gospel  doctrine  are 
presented  in  scattered  passages  of  Scripture  as  seats  of  doctrine 
(sedes  doctrinae);  but  as  Lutherans  we  protest  against  any 
attempt  to  interpret  and  understand  these  seats  of  doctrine  in  con- 
tradiction to  the  doctrine  of  justification,  as  it  is  clearly  brought 
to  our  view.  What  is  contained  in  the  seats  of  the  doctrine  of 
election,  in  no  wise  contradicts  the  clearly  revealed  doctrine  of 
justification.  (Cf.  Matt.  20  and  22;  Rom.  8,  9  and  11;  Eph.  1,  4 
and  11,  etc.)  The  subterfuge  cannot  be  tolerated:  Yes,  that  may 
be  true  of  justification,  but  the  doctrine  of  election  is  quite  an- 
other article  which  cannot  be  rhymed  with  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion. Any  doctrine  that  cannot  be  "rhymed"  with  the  doctrine 
of  justification,  bears  on  its  face  the  brand  of  apostacy  from  the 
one  revealed  truth  and  stands  disclosed  as  a  false  interpretation  of 
Scripture.  For  this  article  of  justification  is  "the  chief  topic  of 
Christian  doctrine,  which,  understood  aright,  illumines  and  magni- 
fies the  honor  of  Christ  (which  is  of  especial  service  for  the  clear, 
correct  understanding  of  the  entire  Holy  Scriptures,  and  alone 
shows  the  way  to  the  unspeakable  treasure  and  right  knowledge 
of  Christ  and  alone  opens  the  door  to  the  entire  Bible."  (Ap. 
Art.  4,  Pliila.  Ed.,  p.  84.)  "If  this  article  is  apprehended  and 
kept  with  a  sure  and  firm  faith,  the  other  articles  will  gradually 
follow.  For  in  the  same  all  articles  of  our  faith  are  compre- 
hended; if  that  is  kept  pure,  the  others  are  taken  good  care  of." 
(Luther.)  "This  article  is,  as  it  were,  the  fortress  and  chief  bul- 
wark of  the  whole  Christian  doctrine  and  religion.  If  this  article 
remains  inviolate,  the  perversions  of  the  other  articles  will  cease 
of  themselves."     (Chemnitz.) 

The  doctrine  of  justification  being  followed,  according  to 
symbolical  authority,  as  sun  and  guide,  we  are  led  to  the  one 
divine  will  respecting  sonship  and  heirship  which  is  this:  In 
and  with  the  merits  of  Christ,  apprehended  individually,  all 
believers  in  the  Son  —  all  these  and  only  these  as  such  —  shall 
become  partakers  of  divine  sonship  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal 
life;  not  sinners  without  faith  are  appropriate  subjects  for  adop- 
tion into  grace  and  sonship  on  the  part  of  God,  but  only  believers 
in  Christ,  and  they  as  such.  This,  then,  is  God's  eternal,  immut- 
able will:  "Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God"  (impos- 
sible to  be  received  into  grace  and  sonship  and  the  inheritance  of 
eternal  life).  In  the  execution  in  time,  accordingly,  actual  faith 
must  be  the  postulate  of  the  actual  reception  into  grace  and  son- 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.  531 

ship;  in  the  eternal  purpose  future  and  foreseen  faith  must 
be  the  postulate  of  the  particular  decree  by  which,  in  the  counsel 
concerning  election,  particular  sinners,  apart  from  others,  on 
account  of  Christ,  were  foreordained  to  grace,  sonship  and  the 
inheritance  of  eternal  life.  The  decree,  it  is  true,  has  been  passed 
before  time  began,  but  the  will  of  God  is  the  same  in  the  same 
relations,  in  this  case  the  reception  of  sinners  into  grace,  sonship, 
and  the  heirship  of  eternal  life.  Decree  and  execution  are  only 
different  expressions  or  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  will  of  God: 
No  man  without  faith  can  as  such,  merely  for  the  sake  of  the 
merits  of  Christ,  be  received  into  sonship  and  the  inheritance  of 
eternal  life,  for  "without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God," 
either  in  time  or  in  eternity. 

With  this  the  Missourian  and  Calvinistic  doctrine  stand 
branded  as  a  fearful  perversion  of  the  doctrine  of  election.  It 
imputes  a  will  to  God,  according  to  which  particular  sinners  as 
such,  without  regard  to  faith,  have  been  ordained  to  salvation, 
thus  being  received  to  grace,  sonship  and  the  inheritance  of 
eternal  life  while  sharing  the  common  doom.  This  overturns 
the  article  of  justification.  For  if  it  is  taught  that  God  has  not 
had  regard  to  faith  when  in  the  eternal  counsel  the  question 
arose  as  to  the  justification  of  particular  sinners  and  their  adop- 
tion to  grace,  sonship  and  heirship,  the  doctrine  will  fall  to  the 
ground  of  itself  that  it  is  only  believers  in  Christ  as  such  who, 
according  to  the  immutable  will  of  God,  shall,  apart  from  others, 
be  adopted  into  sonship  and  the  heirship  of  eternal  life.  If  it 
were  true  that  God  from  eternity  has  elected  for  Himself  par- 
ticular sinners  in  preference  to  others  as  His  dear  children  and 
heirs  without  having  had  regard  to  faith,  it  would  be  equally 
true  that  God  recognizes  now,  in  time,  certain  sinners  as  His 
children  without  having  regard  to  faith.  That  these  and  not 
others  are  His  children  and  heirs,  faith  has  determined  as  little 
in  justification  as  in  election,  if  the  contention  of  our  opponents 
be  correct.  Not  faith  makes,  in  that  case,  the  difference  between 
those  who  are,  in  time,  received  into  grace,  sonship  and  heir- 
ship, and  those  who  fail  of  such  adoption,  but  this  distinction 
has  been  made  once  for  all  in  election,  not  indeed  in  view  of 
faith,  but  merely  according  to  a  hidden  purpose  which  is  the 
dififerentiating  cause  for  time  as  well  as  for  eternity.  Woe  to  Mis- 
souri that  simple  truths  like  these  are  blasphemed  as  rationalistic 


532  Intuitu  Fidei. 

deductions,  and  that  Missouri,  refusing  to  capitulate,  takes  its 
refuge  in  miserable  subterfuges,  because  it  feels  its  defeat  and 
the  pitiable  weakness  of  its  cause! 

IV. 

Let  us  now  approach  the  eleventh  article  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  with  the  question:  "Has  God  made  His  eternal 
decree  as  to  adoption  into  sonship  and  inheritance  of  eternal  life 
with  or  without  the  consideration  of  foreseen  faith?  Has  God 
in  His  counsel,  when  He  decreed  to  restore  certain  sinners,  in 
preference  to  others,  unto  grace,  sonship  and  the  heirship  of 
eternal  life,  considered  and  required  faith  in  His  Son?  Or  has 
He  considered  nothing,  not  even  the  appropriated  merits  of  Christ, 
but  has  He  absolutely,  from  the  common  multitude  preordained 
and  predestinated  this  and  that  sinner  to  salvation  including  all 
the  means  and  operations  of  grace  necessary  thereto,  particularly 
repentance,  faith,  regeneration? 

The  position  of  the  Lutheran  Church  is  exceedingly  clear 
since  the  time  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  The  eternal  decree 
concerning  the  restoration  unto  divine  sonship  and  the  inheritance 
our  Church  has  always  numbered  among  those  mysteries  which 
have  been,  in  a  measure,  clearly  revealed.  The  question  whether 
this  decree  has  been  passed  upon  believers  or  sinners,  our  Church 
has  answered  in  the  most  lucid  manner.  With  the  greatest  unan- 
imity she  laid  down  the  proposition:  "God  has  elected  men  to 
eternal  life  in  view  of  faith,"  or:  "God  has  elected  those  to  eternal 
life,  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would  believe  in  Christ."  But 
the  opposite  doctrine  that  God  has  elected  to  eternal  life,  without 
regard  to  faith,  those  whom  He  pleased,  our  Church  rejected  as 
a  fundamental  Calvinistic  falsehood  and  fought  it  as  a  "subversive 
error."  Now  comes  Missouri  after  three  hundred  years  and 
finds  in  this  position  of  the  Church  a  departure  from  Scripture 
and  Symbol.  The  Scriptures  as  well  as  the  Symbol  are  said 
to  contain  the  doctrine  (which  our  older  Lutheran  theologians 
unanimously  rejected  as  Calvinistic  heresy):  God  has  elected 
certain  sinners  unto  eternal  salvation  without  previous  consider- 
ation of  faith,  and  by  that  at  the  same  time  also  unto  the  call, 
unto  conversion,  sonship,  perseverance,  heirship,  in  short  unto  the 
whole  way  and  unto  all  the  means.  For  election,  according  to 
Missouri,  is  an  insoluble  collection  of  decrees  passed  upon  cer- 
tain sinners  and  extending  from  the  call  through  all  stages  of  the 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Me7i,  Etc.  533 

order  of  salvation  to  final  glory.  Here  everything  is  inseparably 
united.  He  who  is  embraced  in  the  first  of  these  decrees,  is,  of 
necessity  and  unfailingly,  included  also  in  the  others.  He  who 
is  elected  unto  the  call  is  by  that  elected  also  unto  perseverance. 
The  whole  collection  of  decrees  is  an  inseparable  whole,  and  as 
an  inseparable  unit  postulates  throughout  the  same  things,  viz. 
divine  grace  and  redemption.  Whatever  belongs  to  this  collec- 
tion of  decrees  as  a  constituent  part,  can  not  belodig  to  it  as  a 
postulate,  for  the  same  reason  that  the  cause  can  not  be  the  efifect. 
Faith  in  Jesus  is  a  particular  part  of  this  collection  of  decrees, 
therefore  it  can  not  be  postulated  in  the  decree  of  election  as 
such.  The  Eternal  Purpose  narrows  to  election  not  when,  accord- 
ing to  the  universal  order  of  salvation,  believers  are  reached,  but 
in  sinners  who  are  in  precisely  the  same  relation  to  both  Adam 
and  Christ  as  all  other  sinners,  being  fallen  sinners  in  Adam, 
redeemed  sinners  in  Christ.  And  wherever  election  takes  its 
start  it  completes  itself  according  to  its  very  nature.  Where 
the  first  part  is  found,  namely  the  call  'according  to  the  pur- 
pose,' there  the  other  elements,  conversion,  faith,  perseverance, 
glory  are  the  infallibly  sure  and  certain  consequence.  From 
the  time  that  election  has  touched  its  subject,  it  unfailingly  prose- 
cutes its  operation  up  to  its  consummation.  Also  in  the  uni- 
versal counsel  of  salvation  the  order  of  the  constituent  parts  is 
the  same,  but  the  difference  between  the  universal  counsel  of 
salvation  and  election  consists  in  this,  that  the  other  parts  must 
unfailingly  follow  whenever  election  makes  a  beginning  (before 
the  call);  while  the  initial  operations  of  the  universal  counsel  of 
salvation  may  be  experienced  by  many  without  its  end  being 
completely  attained  in  each  case.  As  far  as  the  latter  is  con- 
cerned, it  does  not  depend  solely  upon  the  conduct  of  God, 
but,  in  a  certain  sense,  also  upon  the  conduct  of  man.  But 
election  as  an  eternal  decree  of  salvation,  is  simply  an  uncondi- 
tional, arbitrary  act  of  God  toward  certain  men  whose  salvation 
has  been  decreed  by  God's  free  purpose  and  ordination  without 
the  least  regard  to  their  own  conduct.  Election  as  a  special 
counsel  of  grace  in  this  respect  resembles  redemption.  Both 
have  taken  place  without  any  regard  to  the  future  conduct  of  men. 
As  God  has  redeemed  all  men  without  considering  or  inquiring 
about  their  conduct,  even  so  He  has  ordained  the  elect  to  partici- 
pation in  all  blessings  and  operations  of  grace  without,  in  the 
least,  inquiring  as  to  their  future  conduct. 


534  Intuitu  Fidei. 

Accordingly  the  decree  of  adoption  into  sonship  and  heir- 
ship is  a  Hnk  in  the  chain  of  election,  albeit  the  precedence  of 
faith  to  adoption  according  to  logical  order  is  admitted.  But 
because  all  the  links  of  the  chain  are  indissolubly  connected 
and  election  as  an  inseparable  unit  sets  in  before  the  call  and 
conversion,  it  is  manifest  that  nothing  on  the  side  of  man  can 
be  considered  in  the  last  part  of  the  chain  of  election  which 
was  not  considered  in  the  first.  When  election  sets  in  accord- 
ing to  its  first  stage  (the  call  according  to  the  purpose)  the  whole 
chain  of  decrees  must  necessarily  and  unfailingly  follo\v.  As 
false  as  it  would  be  to  say:  "The  call  of  an  elect  person  has  taken 
place  in  view  of  his  future  faith,  so  false  it  would  be  to  say:  The 
adoption  of  an  elect  person  has  taken  place  in  view  of  his  future 
faith.  For  everything  that  has  been  decreed  in  regard  to  him 
has  been  decreed  in  view  of  the  condition,  in  which  election  in 
its  initial  stage  found  him,  i.  e.  when  he  was  called.  Whatever 
is  found  in  him  after  that  belongs  to  the  chain  of  blessings  of 
grace,  which,  by  election,  has  linked  itself  to  him,  but  the  whole 
series  of  blessings  has  by  a  decree  been  assigned  to  him  as  one  in 
the  same  state,  in  which  the  initial  stage  of  election  found  him. 

According  to  this  evidently  Calvinistic  mode  of  reasoning 
the  decree  of  adoption  into  sonship  and  heirship,  and  also  the 
decree  of  justification  and  salvation  can  not  be  conceived  in  this 
way,  that  God  made  the  apprehension  of  Jesus  on  the  part  of 
the  sinner  a  requirement.  For  He  had  the  elect  before  Him 
among  the  common  multitude,  when  He  determined  their  entire 
salvation  by  the  immutable  fiat  of  election  including  their  glori- 
fication and  everything  that  precedes.  God  has  fixed  and 
ordained  the  preceding  stages  only  on  account  of  the  last,  ac- 
cording to  logical  necessity.  He  has  first  elected  unto  salvation 
and  secondly  unto  all  the  means  necessary  in  decreeing  the 
same.  Missouri  is  perfectly  consistent  when  the  claim  is  set  up 
that  election,  according  to  its  doctrine,  is  quite  a  different  thing 
from  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation.  While  Calvinisits  simply 
deny  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation  and  know  only  of  a  decree- 
ing counsel  by  which  the  salvation  of  the  elect  is  determined, 
Missouri  maintains  the  form  of  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation, 
but  places  by  its  side  the  counsel  of  predestination  as  quite  a 
different  thing.  It  puts  between  redemption  and  the  call  a  two- 
fold, divided  counsel:  1)  The  universal  counsel  of  salvation,  w4iich 
can  be   defeated  in   its  operations  by  wilful  resistance,   and  2) 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         535 

the  particular  counsel  of  election  which  has  the  certain  salva- 
tion of  only  some  particular  persons  for  its  object.  This  can 
not  be  defeated  in  its  operations  by  wilful  resistance,  but  it 
ordains  immovably  and  unfailingly  the  final  salvation  of  "par- 
ticular persons."  In  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation,  Missouri 
thinks,  God  desires  the  salvation  of  all  men,  but  does  not  intend 
to  ordain  it  without  first  considering  their  conduct  toward  His 
call  of  grace.  But  in  the  counsel  of  election  He  ordains  in 
behalf  of  particular  persons  among  the  common  multitude  their 
complete  and  unfailing  salvation,  and  everything  that  belongs  to 
it;  and  this  act  of  election  is  the  comprehensive  and  unfailing 
decree  of  salvation  covering  certain  sinners,  without  any  consid- 
eration of  their  future  faith. 

Such  a  counsel  of  election  is  manifestly  not  the  universal  coun- 
sel of  salvation,  nor  can  such  an  elective  decree  be  harmonized  with 
the  universal  benevolence  of  God.  The  universal  and  the  particu- 
lar counsel  are  diametrically  opposed  to  each  other.  They  are 
not  only  two  different  kinds  of  counsel,  but  logically  contradict 
one  another  in  their  relation  to  the  elect.  The  elect,  according  to 
Missouri,  are  both  under  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation  and 
under  the  particular  counsel  of  election.  When  considering 
them  as  standing  under  the  one,  God  is  said  to  will  their  adoption 
into  sonship  and  heirship  not  without  the  previous  consideration 
of  future  faith,  just  as  He  does  not  decree  the  adoption  of  the  other 
sinners,  because  He  looked  for  faith  in  them  without  finding  it. 
According  to  the  universal  counsel  of  grace,  there  is,  accordingly, 
no  difference  between  the  elect  and  the  reprobate.  He  ordains 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other  without  previous  consideration  as 
to  the  necessary  qualification,  yea,  He  determines  the  exclusion 
of  both  from  the  decree  conferring  sonship  and  heritage,  unless 
He  finds  in  them  faith  in  Jesus.  Now  comes  that  "thing  which  is 
quite  different",  the  counsel  of  election,  which  "hovers  only  over 
certain  persons",  and  notwithstanding  the  universal  counsel  of  sal- 
vation, it  determines,  in  their  behalf,  the  exact  opposite.  It  deter- 
mines, without  previous  consideration  of  faith,  that  these  "certain 
persons",  considered  merely  as  redeemed  sinners,  shall  be  received 
into  grace,  sonship  and  heirship.  In  the  same  relation  in  which  the 
universal  gracious  will  of  God  pronounced  over  them  a  categorical 
"no",  the  particular  elective  will  pronounces  an  equally  categor- 
ical "yes".  In  so  far  as  the  elect  stand,  as  foreseen  non-believers, 
under  the  universal  counsel  of  grace,  the  decision  of  the  will  of  God 


536  hitidiic  Fidei. 

in  regard  to  them  is:  No;  considered  as  non-believers,  I  can  and 
will  ordain  your  adoption  into  sonship  and  heirship  no  more  than 
that  of  the  others.  But  in  as  far  as  they  are  considered  as  stand- 
ing under  the  particular  decree  of  election,  although  in  the  same 
condition  as  in  the  former  relation,  the  decision  of  the  will  of  God 
is  exactly  the  opposite:  Yes,  without  previous  consideration  of 
your  future  faith,  your  adoption  into  sonship  and  heirship  shall 
be  decided  as  immovably  and  eternally  certain.  If  Missouri  would 
merely  teach  a  twofold  counsel  and  will  of  salvation,  according 
as  the  elect  or  non-elect  are  treated  of,  it  would  at  least  be  free 
from  the  opprobrium  of  imputing  a  contradictory  will  to  God. 
If,  now,  we  have,  according  to  the  pattern  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord,* the  right,  to  reject  a  doctrine  among  other  reasons  for 
this  also,  that  it  imputes  to  God  contradictory  wills,  the  doctrine 
of  Missouri,  can  surely  not  escape  this  judgment.  Missouri,  in 
a  measure  admits  this,  inasmuch  as  it  speaks  of  its  counsel  of  elec- 
tion as  "quite  another  thing,"  which  really  can  not  be  rhymed 
with  the  universal  counsel  of  grace.  The  Scriptures  are  said  to 
establish  something  concerning  election  which  we  know  to  be 
untrue  according  to  the  universal  gracious  will  of  God.  Already 
with  this  monstrous  principle  in  itself  Missouri  departs  from  the 
Symbol.  The  Symbol  establishes  the  principle  that  no  contra- 
dictory will  should  be  imputed  to  God.  Missouri  does  this  not- 
withstanding by  letting  the  will  of  God  be  now  "yes",  now  "no'\ 
regarding  persons  in  precisely  the  same  relations,  according  as  He 
answers  either  according  to  His  universal  gracious  will  or  accord- 
ing to  His  decreeing  will  the  question :  "Shall  these  particular  per- 
sons be  received  into  grace,  sonship  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal 
life?"  Missouri,  beyond  a  doubt,  imputes,  in  respect  to  the  electa 
a  twofold  and  contradictory  will  to  God.  The  elective  will  of 
God  is  not  only  entirely  different  from  the  universal  gracious  will 
of  God,  according  to  Missouri,  but  it  practically  neutralizes  and 
abolishes  the  same,  as  far  as  the  elect  are  concerned.  Where  the 
one  says  "no  ',  the  other  says  just  as  positively  "yes". 

The  Formula  of  Concord  has  not  dreamed  of  laying  the 
decree  of  adoption  into  sonship  and  heirship  down  as  embracing 


*  "Hoc  esset  contradictorias  voluntates  Deo  affingere";  that  is,  in 
such  a  way  that  God,  who  is  eternal  truth,  would  be  taught  to  be  con- 
trary to  Himself.  (Phila.  ed.  p.  655;  §  34.)  And  this  the  symbol  says 
on  the  very  subject  of  election  and  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation  in 
point  of  the  call. 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         537 

merely  "certain  persons",  without  regard  to  their  future  faith.  It 
has  not  dreamed  of  fixing,  in  this  respect,  a  bridgeless  chasm  or 
insurmountable  wall  of  separation,  or  even  of  representing  the  will 
of  God  as  in  logical  contradiction  with  itself.  For  the  question: 
To  what  persons  does  the  decree  of  adoption  into  sonship  and 
heirship  apply?  has,  according  to  our  Symbol,  one  and  the  same 
answer,  in  harmony  with  the  Word  of  God,  whether  we  speak 
of  election  or  of  the  universal  will  of  God.  God's  will,  in  this  mat- 
ter, is  clearly  revealed,  says  the  Formula  of  Concord;  but  not  as  a 
double  one  in  contradiction  with  itself,  according  as  the  sedes 
doctrinae  of  election  or  those  of  the  universal  gracious  will  of  God 
are  consulted,  but  the  answer  is  always  the  same.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  scriptural  passages  that  treat  of  election  are  consulted 
in  the  sense  of  Missouri  and  afterward  those  that  treat  of  the  uni- 
versal gracious  will  of  God,  a  twofold  answer  is  received.  The 
scriptural  passages  which  treat  of  election  are  to  be  understood 
as  saying:  "Yes,  without  consideration  of  faith";  but  the  pas- 
sages that  treat  of  the  universal  gracious  will  of  God,  are  to  be  un- 
derstood as  saying:  "No,  not  without  consideration  of  future 
faith."  And  now,  says  Missouri,  we  are  to  believe  both.  That 
means  concerning  the  same  thing  or  question  in  the  same  rela- 
tion the  Christian  is  to  believe  two  different  things,  according 
as  he  considers  the  one  or  the  other  class  of  scriptural  passages. 
When  he  reads  or  considers  the  sedes  of  doctrinae  of  election,  he 
is  required  to  believe  that  they  contain  as  revealed  truth  that  the 
decree  of  adoption  into  sonship  and  heirship  embraces  only  cer- 
tain sinners  without  consideration  of  faith.  But  when  he  con- 
siders the  sedes  doctrinae  of  the  universal  gracious  will,  he  is  re- 
quired to  believe  the  contrary,  that  the  decree  of  adoption  into 
sonship  and  inheritance  embraces  the  same  persons,  but  as 
believers  in  Jesus,  i.  e.  not  without  consideration  of  faith.  Who- 
ever does  not  consider  this  with  Missouri  as  the  highest  rung  on 
the  ladder  of  Christian  faith,  has  long  since  been  anathemized  by 
Missouri  as  a  "blasphemous  rationalist"  and  as  one  who  denies 
the  Christian  principle  of  faith. 

The  eleventh  article  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  treats  in 
detail  of  election.  An  essential  part  of  this  election,  whether  we 
extend  the  conception  or  narrow  it,  is  the  eternal  decree  of  adop- 
tion into  sonship  and  heirship.  This  decree  is  the  essential  ker- 
nel of  "election."  Concerning  what  persons  has  God  ordained 
that  they  should  be  restored  to  grace,  sonship  and  the  heirship 


538  Intuitu  Fidei. 

of  eternal  life?  The  Formula  of  Concord  does  not  beg  this 
question.  Yet  the  answer  is  not  worded  ambiguously  like  this: 
"This  is  a  mystery;  this  has  not  been  revealed."  Nor  do  we 
receive  the  answer:  "Concerning  this  matter  nothing  has  been 
revealed  but  that  the  elect  are  the  persons  who  are  finally  saved." 
Still  less  does  it  answer  that  God  has  told  us  in  reference  to  this 
matter  something  quite  dififerent  in  the  passages  that  speak  of 
election,  from  what  we  learn  in  the  passages  that  treat  of  the 
universal  gracious  will.  But  the  answer  comes  clear  and  vmequiv- 
ocal:  "God  has  given  us  a  lucid  and  plain  revelation  respect- 
ing this  matter,  and  secondly,  the  sedes  doctrinae  of  election 
reveal  the  same  thing  as  the  scriptural  passages  treating  of  the 
universal  gracious  will.  This,  according  to  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, is  the  substance  of  both  classes  of  sedes  doctrinae  that  God 
has  ordained  from  eternity  in  His  counsel  and  purpose:  "that  He 
will  justify  and  receive  into  sonship  and  the  heirship  of  eternal  life 
all  those  who,  in  true  repentance  and  right  faith  apprehend  Jesus 
Christ."* 

This,  the  Formula  of  Concord  says,  belongs  to  the  right 
definition  of  election.  This  belongs  to  the  "right  meaning"  of 
election,  in  contradistinction  to  that  false  opinion  which  is  to  be 
rejected  that  election  is  a  sort  of  military  drafting.     The  same 

*  Thus  wrote  Luther  in  his  comments  on  Is.  42,  1  (Behold,  my  ser- 
vant, whom  I  uphold,  mine  elect,  in  whom  my  soul  delighteth):  "There- 
fore all  men  should  hear  and  believe  this  servant.  This  servant  alone 
who  has  such  weighty  testimonies,  can  make  us  certain  of  the  gracious 
and  good  will  of  the  Father.  When  we  believe  Him,  also  we  shall  be 
made  servants  and  elect  ones  of  God."  "Now  our  whole  destiny,  either 
salvation  or  damnation  depends  upon  this,  whether  we  believe  or  not, 
and  the  judgment  has  been  pronounced  already  which  closes  and  denies 
heaven  to  those  who  reject  this  faith,  nor  desire  to  receive  it."  (Erl. 
50,  58).  In  so  far,  therefore,  as  election  is  the  real  elective  decree  of  sal- 
vation embracing  some  particular  persons,  and  makes  a  difference  among 
sinners  as  those  who  are  to  be  saved  according  to  God's  eternal  counsel 
and  purpose,  and  those  who  shall  not  be  saved,  it  applies  not  to  sin- 
ners without  faith,  but  to  sinners  whose  faith  has  been  foreseen.  Not 
sinners  as  such,  not  redeemed  men  as  such,  not  sinners  who  are  merely 
called,  but  believers  as  such,  i.  e.  persons  who  know  Christ,  receive  Him 
in  true  faith  and  by  virtue  of  His  apprehended  merit  have  been  justified 
and  reconciled  with  God,  are,  according  to  His  gracious  pleasure,  received 
into  grace  out  of  His  pleasure  in  Jesus  Christ,  in  such  a  way,  that  He  has 
given  them  in  preference  to  others  sonship,  the  heirship  of  eternal  life 
and  heaven  and  the  promise  of  eternal  blessedness.  That  is  the  doctrine 
of  our  Confession.  . 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         539 

truth,  it  must  not  be  overlooked,  belongs  to  the  universal  gracious 
will,  for  God  desires  to  receive  all  men  into  sonship  and  heritage 
in  precisely  the  same  manner.  But  when  we  speak  of  the  final 
"election  or  ordination  to  salvation,"  it  belongs  by  a  necessity 
equally  absolute,  to  "a  correct,  healthy  opinion  of  the  matter,  that 
the  decree  of  adoption  into  sonship  and  heritage  was  formed  in 
exact  harmony  with  the  universal  gracious  will  of  God,  embracing, 
consequently  not  sinners  as  such  or  persons  merely  redeemed  as 
5uch,  or  least  of  all  "certain  persons,"  or  "a  few,"  or  "some  men," 
but  exclusively  and  definitely  "all  those  who  in  true  repentance 
and  right  faith  apprehend  Jesus  Christ."  These  and  no  others! 
And — so  dreams  Missouri — God  has  not  at  all  looked  or  seen 
who  these  people  would  be?  He  has,  without  any  consideration 
of  future  faith,  resolved  to  restore  to  grace,  to  elect  as  His  dear 
■child  and  heir  "this  or  that  particular  person"?  Shame,  in  time 
and  in  eternity  upon  a  presumption  which  imputes  to  our  dear 
Formula  of  Concord  such  an  execrable  idea,  in  spite  of  its 
explicit  testimony,  where  it  furnishes  "ex  professo"  a  definition 
or  declaration  of  the  logical  essence  of  election. 

How  can  you,  who  are  mere  tyros  in  the  role  of  performers, 
treat  the  Confession  in  such  a  way  and  foist  upon  it  the  exact 
opposite  of  its  own  explicit  explanation?  Is  it  any  wonder  that 
you  carry  your  dreams  even  into  the  Scriptures  and  dream  of 
the  eternal  decree  concerning  sonship  and  heirship  as  two  con- 
tradictory doctrines  and  beliefs;  the  one  determined  by  the  uni- 
•versal  gracious  will,  the  other  by  the  particular  elective  will ;  the 
one  that  God  has  willed  to  ordain  not  a  single  sinner  to  sonship 
and  heritage  wnthout  previous  consideration  of  the  merits  of  Christ 
apprehended  in  faith, — the  other  that  He  has  done  this,  notwith- 
standing, by  ordaining  the  adoption  of  certain  sinners  as  His 
■dear  children  and  heirs  of  heaven  without  previous  regard  to 
future  faith.* 


*  "You  blind  rationalist,"  —  Missouri  will  say  here  —  "this  is  the 
great  mystery  that  the  two  doctrines  of  the  universal  gracious  will  of  God 
and  of  election  can  not  be  harmonized.  This  we  have  affirmed  a  hundred 
times.  For  that  God  would  not  ordain  any  sinner  to  sonship  and  heir- 
ship without  having  regard  to  the  apprehended  merits  of  Christ,  we 
are  taught  by  the  clear  passages  which  treat  of  the  universal  benevolence 
of  God.  But  that  God  has  really  ordained  certain  persons  to  eternal 
life  without  previous  consideration  of  their  future  faith,  we  are  taught 
in  the  passages  treating  of  election."  This,  then,  is  the  great  Missourian 
mystery  that  the  Scriptures  give  in  regard  to  the  same  matter  in  the  same 


540  Intuitu  Fidei. 

Accordingf  to  the  Formula  of  Concord  the  revealed  universal 
will  of  God  is  also  a  part  of  the  doctrine  of  "election,"  for  it  is 
expressly  stated  in  the  eighty-third  paragraph  that  it  is  God's 
revealed  will  to  receive  into  grace  all  those  who  repent  and  believe 
in  Christ.  This  truth  is,  as  it  were,  the  guiding  motive  and  princi- 
ple of  this  separative  election  unto  sonship  and  inheritance.  Here 
a  separation  takes  place  between  those  who  are  elected  unto  son- 
ship  and  inheritance  and  those  who  are  not.  Faith  makes  the 
difference  here  between  the  worthy  and  the  unworthy.  Only 
those  of  whom  God  foresees  and  foreknows  that  "in  true  repent- 
ance they  receive  Jesus  Christ  as  their  Savior",  come  under  the 
elective  decree  that  confers  sonship  and  inheritance.  All  others 
—  all  those  whom  God  does  not  foresee  as  future  believers  in  the 
Son  —  are  on  this  account  and  for  this  reason  excluded  from 
election,  because  this  act  of  God  is  controlled  by  the  revealed 
principle  or  purpose:  "That  all  who  believe  in  Him  should  not 
perish  but  have  everlasting  life." 

On  this  account  the  Epitome  says  so  firmly  and  emphatically 
that  we  should  seek  in  Christ  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father; 
"for  the  Father  has  ordained  in  His  eternal  counsel  to  save  no 
one  except  those  who  acknowledge  and  believe  in  His  Son,  Jesus 
Christ."*  Such  was  the  will  of  God  in  the  act  of  ordmation  and 
election  respecting  sonship  and  salvation.  To  be  sure,  it  is  a 
thankless  task  to  conduct  a  controversy  with  people  who  strike 


relation  one  answer  in  one  series  of  passages  and  another  answer  in 
another  series  of  passages,  saying  at  one  time  "yes"  and  another  time 
"no."  This  means  to  make  God,  who  is  the  truth  Himself,  a  liar.  He  will 
guard  His  honor! 

*  Query:  "What  is  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father  which  we  are 
to  seek  in  Christ?"  Answer:  "That  the  Father  has  ordained  in  His 
eternal,  divine  counsel  that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those  who 
acknowledge  and  truly  believe  in  His  Son  Jesus  Christ."  Second  question: 
"Does  this  election  exclude  certain  sinners  from  salvation?"  Answer: 
"It  is  the  purpose  of  the  Father  to  save  no  one  except  those  who  believe 
in  Jesus  Christ  and  therefore  it  excludes  all  sinners  without  faith."^ 
Third  question:  "To  what  did  the  Father  look,  when  He  elected  to  sal- 
vation in  Jesus  Christ?"  Answer:  "He  has  considered,  whether  sinners 
acknowledge  His  Son  Jesus  Christ  and  truly  believe  in  Him  or  not;  the 
former  as  believers  He  has  elected  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  they  should 
be  saved  through  Him,  the  latter  as  unbelievers  He  did  not  elect." 
Faith  makes  the  difference  between  the  unworthy  and  the  worthy,  for 
thus  it  has  been  ordained  of  God,  not  to  save  any  one  except  he  believes 
in  Christ." 


Is  the  Doctrine  that   God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         541 

the  clear,  explicit  text  of  the  Confession  in  the  face,  refusing  to 
submit  to  its  statements  as  they  lie  plainly  before  us,  as  they  have 
been  unanimously  understood  by  the  Church  of  the  tim.e,  and 
defended  and  quoted  against  Calvinists  and  Huberians;  thus 
forcing  upon  the  Confession  the  exact  opposite  of  what  it  declares 
in  so  many  words  "as  the  true  and  correct  definition  of  our 
Church."  Only  when  a  person  purposely  closes  his  eyes,  or  with 
his  eyes  open  refuses  to  see,  will  he  fail  to  perceive  that  when  the 
Formula  of  Concord  speaks  of  the  decree  conferring  sonship  and 
heirship,  it  unites  this  "expressis  verbis"  to  faith  and  repentance. 
In  this  way  it  presents  election  as  having  taken  place  "in  Christ", 
yet  not  in  Christ  still  unapprehended,  but  in  Christ  as  appre- 
hended by  faith. 

But  does  this  agree  with  the  trend  of  the  eleventh  article 
and  with  its  general  import?  Or  are  the  passages  quoted  by  us 
and  resembling  each  other,  mere  fragments  torn  from  the  context 
—  requiring  study  indeed,  and  apparently  closely  akin  to  the 
Intuitu  fidei  theory,  but  receiving  quite  a  new  light  when  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  the  article  as  a  whole? 

The  trend  of  this  article  is  evidently  against  the  Calvinistic 
conception  of  election.  The  fact,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  univer- 
sal gracious  will  of  God  concerning  redemption,  the  call  of  grace, 
and  the  evangelical  promises,  is  repeatedly  accorded  such  promi- 
nence, and  woven  and  welded  into  the  orthodox  presentation  of 
the  doctrine  of  election,  bears  witness  to  the  correctness  of  this 
view.  The  Formula  of  Concord  does  not  tear  apart  the  universal 
counsel  of  grace  and  the  particular  counsel  of  election  as  two  dif- 
ferent things  separated  from  each  other  as  wildly  as  heaven  and 
earth;  nor  does  it  present  these  two  counsels  as  presenting  a 
mysterious  and  insoluble  contradiction.  The  very  opposite  is 
true,  the  Formula  presents  both  as  being  most  intimately  con- 
nected with  each  other.  Again  and  again  it  discloses  the  univer- 
sality of  the  foundation  of  human  salvation,  as  the  basis  for  the 
correct  conception  of  election,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and 
according  to  the  analogy  of  faith.  The  gross  particularism  and 
absolutism  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election  is  especially  and 
most  thoroughly  refuted.  This  is  clear  from  the  words  of  the 
eleventh  article:  "This  eternal  election  or  appointment  of  God  to 
eternal  life  is  also  not  to  be  considered  merely  in  God's  secret, 
inscrutable  counsel  in  such  a  manner  as  though  it  comprises  in 
itself  nothing  further,  or  nothing  more  belonged  thereto,  and 


542  Intuitu  Fidei. 

nothing  more  were  considered  therein,  than  that  God 
foresaw  how  many  would  be  saved,  and  who  and  how 
many  would  be  damned,  or  that  He  only  held  a  review,, 
and  would  say  thus:  "This  one  shall  be  saved,  that  one 
shall  be  damned;  this  one  shall  remain  steadfast  in  the  faith  to* 
the  end,  that  one  shall  not  remain  steadfast"  (Phila.  ed.  p.  651). 
"This  false  delusion  and  dangerous  thoughts"  (§12),  from  which 
nothing  can  flow  but  despondency  and  despair  (§  10)  is  to  be 
thoroughly  destroyed,  but  over  against  it  the  "right  meaning  and 
sound  sense,  the  'vera  and  sana  sententia'  is  to  be  explained  from 
the  foundation  of  the  Scriptures  (juxta  praescriptum  et  analogiam 
verbi  dei  (§§  2  and  12.)  For  the  doctrine  of  election,  according 
to  the  Formula  of  Concord,  does  not  constitute  an  isolated  and 
solitary  fragment  which,  as  a  mere  particle  of  revealed  truth, 
stands  in  no  relation  to  the  remainder  of  revealed  truth;  on  the 
contrary,  the  doctrine  of  election  according  to  our  Confession,, 
is  decidely  in  keeping  with  the  whole  analogy  of  faith,  and  espe- 
cially with  the  fundamental  article  of  the  justification  and  salva- 
tion of  the  sinner  by  faith  alone.  The  Formula  of  Concord,  there- 
fore, is  very  careful  to  turn  away  from  human  thoughts,  which 
presumptuously  busy  themselves  about  this  fathomless  abyss,  and, 
following  their  own  prompting,  go  off  in  all  kinds  of  speculations, 
surmises  and  conclusions;  it  fixes  its  gaze  steadfastly  upon  the 
Word,  and  nothing  but  the  Word.  "This  predestination",  says 
our  Confession,  (Epitome  XI,  5)  "is  not  to  be  investigated  in  the 
secret  counsel  of  God,  but  to  be  sought  in  the  Word  of  God, 
where  it  is  also  revealed."  Neither  should  we  investigate  the 
secret,  concealed  abyss  of  divine  predestination,  but  should  give 
heed  to  the  revealed  will  of  God.  For  He  "Hath  made  known  to 
us  the  mystery  of  His  will",  and  made  it  manifest  through  Christ 
that  it  might  be  preached.  Eph.  1,  9  sqq.;  2  Tim.  1,  9  sqq. 
(Decl.  XI,  26.) 

By  this  the  Formula  of  Concord  does  not  deny  that  much  in 
this  "mystery",  when  taken  as  a  whole,  is  reserved  and  hidden. 
This  is  true  of  the  counsel  formed  in  eternity  and  of  its  execution 
in  time  both  as  to  general  scope  and  numerous  separate  features. 
It  mentions  quite  a  number  of  such  reserved  features  and  unan- 
swered questions,  and  fixes  the  necessary  limits  of  legitimate 
inquiry.  (Decl.  XI,  54-62.)  However,  it  is  a  matter  of  the 
greatest  importance  and  the  most  far-reaching  effect  that  the 
Confession  places  the  centre  of  gravity,  as  "revealed  in  the  Word 


Is  the  Doctrine  that   God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         543 

and  to  be  sought  therein",  not  in  the  unrevealed  part  of  the 
mystery  but,  carefully  and  purposely  in  the  part  which  has  been 
revealed,  and  admonishes  us  to  determine  the  "right  meaning" 
and  the  right  use  of  this  doctrine  from  the  revelations  of  the 
Word. 

The -Epitome  as  well  as  the  Declaratio  commend  most  assidu- 
ously a  careful  distinction  between  the  revealed  and  the  hidden 
part  of  the  mystery  of  predestination,  and  prohibits  a  mingling  of 
the  one  with  the  other  by  enveloping  that  which  has  been  revealed 
in  mysterious  darkness,  or  by  treating  that  which  has  not  been 
revealed  as  an  object  of  faith  or  of  speculation.  This  distinction 
between  the  revealed  and  the  unrevealed  part  of  the  mystery  of 
election,  and  the  corresponding  treatment  of  the  doctrine,  is  the 
true  key  to  the  proper  understanding  of  the  eleventh  article.  The 
Lutheran  Church  has  well  understood  the  true  tendency  of  the 
eleventh  article,  which  is  apparent  from  the  later  elaboration  of 
the  doctrine  of  election.  The  shape  given  this  doctrine  by  the 
Church  is  determined  by  the  part  known  and  revealed,  thus  giving- 
a  well  merited  rebuft  to  Calvinistic  dabbling  in  mysteries  so  de- 
structive of  the  revealed  foundation  of  salvation.  And  when 
Missouri  now  tries,  by  the  use  of  Calvinistic  arguments,  to  demon- 
strate away  the  part  of  the  doctrine  on  which  revelation  has  shed 
a  bright  light,  and  emphasizes  once  more  the  unrevealed  "mys- 
tery" of  election  as  the  very  essence  of  our  faith  in  regard  to  elec- 
tion, it  merely  furnishes  evidence  of  a  decided  departure  from  the 
historical  interpretation  of  the  eleventh  article,  yea  of  being 
diametrically  opposed  to  the  very  article  every  part  of  which  it 
professes  to  subscribe  word  for  word.  The  Formula  of  Concord 
flees,  as  far  as  the  correct  conception  and  use  of  this  article  is 
concerned,  again  and  again  from  the  mysterious  side  into  the 
clearly  revealed  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Word,  finding  these 
a  safe  bulwark  against  all  pernicious  thought  (pravae,  sinistrae 
opiniones)  and  blasphemous  dreams.  Missouri,  on  the  other 
hand,  views  with  proud  Calvinistic  contempt  the  illumined  part 
which  has  been  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  and  flees  from  all  the 
revealed  points  of  the  doctrine  into  the  impenetrable  mystery  that 
"hovers  over  certain  persons."  In  this  dark,  mysterious  abyss  of 
the  "mystery"  the  Missourian  doctrine  of  election  lives  and  thrives 
as  its  very  life  element.  Whatever  the  passages  that  treat  partic- 
ularly of  election  contain,  Missouri  takes  to  the  border  of  that 
abyss  and  lets  us  gaze  into  the  darkness  of  the  mystery  that  hovers 


544  Intuitu  Fidei. 

over  certain  persons!  Even  the  clearest  passages,  for  instance 
those  that  refer  to  the  decree  conferring  sonship  and  heirship 
upon  foreseen  behevers  as  such,  Missouri  likes  to  envelop  in  a 
nebulous  mysterious  darkness;  yea,  even  denies  them  with  Cal- 
vin, in  order  to  save  the  "mystery  hovering  over  certain  persons." 
The  Formula  of  Concord  sees  in  the  revealed  will  of  God,  "that 
all  those  who  by  a  true  faith  apprehend  Jesus  Christ"  shall  be 
saved,  an  essential  part  of  the  revealed  doctrine  of  election  and 
ordination  to  eternal  life.  This  revealed  will  of  God  is  considered 
by  the  Formula  as  a  bright  beam  of  light  cast  by  the  Gospel  upon 
the  mystery  of  election.  Missouri,  however,  thinks  that  this  view 
divests  the  doctrine  of  election  of  its  mystery,  solves  the  same, 
and  makes  it  plausible  to  reason.  It,  therefore,  accepts  "election 
unto  sonship"  as  synonymous  with  "election  unto  faith"  and  then 
amalgamates  the  two  as  a  mystery  "hovering  over  certain  per- 
sons." Yes,  Missouri  finds  its  definition  of  election  purporting 
to  be  drawn  from  sedes  doctrinae,  in  that  part  of  the  mystery  of 
election  which  it  has  pleased  God  not  to  reveal ;  and  this  it  does  in 
clear  contradiction  to  the  Confession.  "One  is  hardened,  blinded, 
given  over  to  a  reprobate  mind,  while  another  who  is,  indeed,  in 
the  same  guilt,  is  converted";  such  unexplained  features  Missouri 
looks  upon  as  pivotal  to  the  whole  doctrine  of  election.  In  them 
Missouri  finds  its  "election  without  regard  to  anything",  election 
"according  to  sovereign  right",  election  as  "a  mystery  hovering 
over  certain  persons",  most  clearly  enunciated,  and  by  such  pro- 
cesses it  has  formulated  a  definition  of  election  ("this  one  shall 
be  saved,  this  one  shall  be  rejected"),  which  resembles  the  drafting 
of  soldiers  for  military  service  as  one  ^g^  resembles  another. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  would  also  have  us  understand,  in 
what  sense  the  doctrine  of  election  has  been  revealed  in  the  Word 
and  is  to  be  sought  there;  not,  however,  as  though  certain  pas- 
sages could  be  found  which,  in  contradiction  to  others,  speak  of 
a  mysterious  ordination  unto  sonship  and  heirship,  in  which  no 
regard  is  had  of  faith.  On  the  contrary,  the  doctrine  of  election, 
as  taught  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  has  been  revealed  "in  the 
Gospel"  in  so  far  as  it  holds  out  Jesus  as  the  Savior  of  all  men 
and  calls  them  to  repentance  and  faith.  The  Epitome,  therefore, 
declares:  "But  the  Word  of  God  leads  us  to  Christ  who  is  the 
Book  of  Life,  in  whom  all  are  written  and  elected  that  are  to  be 
saved,  as  it  is  written  (Eph.  1,  4):  'He  hath  chosen  us  in  Him 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world.' " 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         545 

"Thus  Christ  calls  to  Himself  all  sinners  and  promises  them 
rest,  and  He  is  anxious  that  all  men  should  come  to  Him  and 
permit  Him  to  help  them.  To  them  He  offers  Himself  in  His 
Word,  and  wishes  them  to  hear  it,  and  not  to  stop  their  ears, 
and  despise  the  Word." 

"He  promises  besides  the  power  and  efficiency  of  the  Holy- 
Ghost,  and  divine  assistance  for  perseverance  and  eternal  salva- 
tion (that  we  may  remain  steadfast  in  the  faith  and  attain  eternal 
salvation)." 

"Therefore  we  should  judge  concerning  this  our  election  to 
eternal  life  neither  from  reason  nor  from  the  law  of  God,  which 
would  lead  either  into  a  dissipated,  dissolute,  epicurean  life,  or 
into  despair  and  would  excite  in  the  hearts  of  men  pernicious 
thoughts  (and  such  thoughts  can  not  effectually  be  guarded 
against  as  long  as  they  follow  their  own  reason),  so  that  they  think 
to  themselves:  'If  God  has  elected  me  to  salvation,  I  can  not  be 
condemned,  although  I  do  whatever  I  will'.  And  again :  Tf  I  am 
not  elected  to  eternal  life,  it  matters  not  what  good  I  do;  for  my 
eflforts  are  nevertheless  all  in  vain.'  " 

"But  the  true  judgment  concerning  predestination  must  be 
learned  alone  from  the  Gospel  concerning  Christ,  in  which  it  is 
clearly  testified  that  God  has  'concluded  them  all  under  unbelief,. 
that  He  might  have  mercy  upon  all',  and  'that  He  is  not  willing- 
that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  come  to  repentance.'  "  (§§  6-9; 
Phila.  ed.  pp.  525  and  526.) 

Accordingly,  "election  has  been  revealed  in  the  Gospel",  but 
not  only  in  some  few  passages  that  speak  exclusively  of  the 
elect;  nor  has  it  been  revealed  merely  for  the  sake  of  these  elect, 
as  though  this  mystery  did  not  concern  the  others,  but  quite  in 
general,  in  as  far  as  the  general  Gospel  for  poor  sinners  is  the 
authentic  revelation  of  the  will  of  God  unto  all  men  and  for  all 
men.  The  Gospel,  as  it  is  preached  to  all  men  without  distinc- 
tion, is  at  the  same  time  the  revelation  of  election,  for  it  clearly 
teaches  that  God  desires  to  show  His  grace  to  all  men,  to  adopt 
them  all  unto  sonship  and  heirship,  to  ordain  them  all  in  Christ 
unto  salvation.  It  presents  Jesus  as  the  book  of  life,  leads  them 
to  salvation,  and  offers  it  to  them  (i.  e.  election  and  ordination 
unto  the  same)  on  account  of  Christ,  "as  He  has  promised  this 
gracious  election  not  with  mere  words,  but  has  also  certified  it 
with  an  oath,  and  sealed  it  with  the  holy  sacraments,  which  we 
can  call  to  mind  in  our  most  severe  temptations,  and  fro-m  tlieni 


546  Intuitu  Fidei. 

comfort  ourselves,  and  thereby  quench  the  fiery  darts  of  the  devil." 
(Ep.  XI,  13:  Phila.  ed.,  p.  527.)  This,  it  is  true,  takes  place  only 
within  the  prescribed  order  of  repentance  and  faith,  which  apper- 
tains to  all  men  in  general,  so  that  God,  as  far  as  He  is  concerned, 
earnestly  invites  all  men  without  distinction  to  repentance  and 
faith.  If  all  would  come,  all  would  also  have  been  elected  and 
ordained  in  Christ  to  eternal  life.  It  all  depends  on  this  and 
according  to  it  the  decision  is  rendered;  because  the  Father  has 
decided  in  His  purpose,  in  His  eternal  counsel  thus  and  not  other- 
wise, that  all  those  who  in  true  faith  apprehend  Jesus  Christ,  shall 
be  received,  ordained  and  elected  unto  grace,  the  adoption,  and 
inheritance  of  eternal  life.  How  many,  and  who  they  will  be, 
God  knows  with  exactness  and  certainty,  for  He  saw  it  before  the 
time  of  the  world.     (Decl.  XI,  54.     Phila.  ed.,  p.  659.) 

The  believers  that  God  foresaw  are  they  who  are  written  in 
Christ,  the  book  of  life,  and  elected  to  eternal  salvation.  But  as 
Christ,  the  Gospel,  the  call,  and  the  order  of  repentance  and  faith, 
are  open  to  all  sinners  without  distinction,  thus  also  the  possi- 
bility of  election,  since  the  latter  links  itself  by  means  of  God's 
foreknowledge  to  repentance  and  faith  now  in  time.  The  eternal 
decree  of  election  does  not  embrace  merely  "certain  persons", 
but  those  who  are  called,  who  apprehend  Jesus  and  have  been 
foreseen  as  such.  In  short,  election  is  not  absolute,  as  though  it 
had  taken  place  without  previous  consideration  of  repentance  and 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ;  on  the  contrary,  election  is  relative,  being 
determined  by  the  foreknowledge  of  God  of  the  persons  who  shall 
believe. 

It  attains  its  end  by  virtue  of  the  divine  foreknowledge  within 
the  established  order  of  repentance  and  faith,  which  is  available 
for  all,  and  could  have  embraced  all  men  just  as  well,  if  they  only, 
in  pursuance  of  the  call  of  grace,  had  permitted  themselves  to  be 
led  to  repentance  and  faith.* 

*  The  Formula  of  Concord  does  not,  like  Missouri,  place  the  con- 
summation of  the  elective  decree  between  Christ  and  the  order  of  repent- 
ance and  faith,  as  though  merely  certain  persons,  for  the  sake  of  the  merits 
of  Christ  (unapprehended)  were"  ordained  to  repentance  and  faith.  But 
the  Confession  brings  the  consummation  of  the  elective  decree  within  the 
order  of  repentance  and  faith,  and  at  the  same  time  presents  it  as  having 
taken  place  in  Christ.  Yea,  it  understands  the  "in  Christ"  as:  in  the 
Savior,  who  objectively  is  the  Savior  of  all  men,  but  subjectively  only 
of  believers,  since  it  is  impossible  to  please  God  without  faith.  As  a 
mere  book  of  life  even  Christ  benefits  no  man.     The  very  wording  of  the 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.  547 

This  conception  of  election,  viewing  it  as  a  part  of  the  univer- 
sal order  of  repentance  and  faith,  and  as  open  to  all  men  through 
the  call  of  grace  extended  to  all,  is  set  forth  more  clearly  still  in 
the  Declaratio.  There  we  read:  "Therefore  this  eternal  election 
of  God  is  to  be  considered  in  Christ,  and  not  beyond  and  without 
Christ.  For  'in  Christ'  testifies  the  apostle  Paul,  'He  hath  chosen 
us  before  the  foundation  of  the  world;  as  it  is  written:  He  hath 
made  us  acceptable  in  the  Beloved.'  But  this  election  is  revealed 
from  heaven  through  the  preached  Word  when  the  Father  says 
(Matt.  17,  5):  'This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased;  hear  ye  Him.'  And  Christ  says  (Matt.  11,  28):  'Come 
unto  me  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  I  will  give  you  rest' 
And  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost  Christ  says  (John  16,  14):  'He 
shall  glorify  me,  for  He  shall  receive  of  mine,  and  shall  show  it 
unto  you.'     Therefore  the  entire  Holy  Trinity,  Father,  Son  and 


Confession  shows  in  many  places  that  it  conceives  of  election  unto  son- 
ship  and  heirship  as  the  execution  of  the  provisions  contained  in  the  foun- 
dation of  the  order  of  salvation,  following  the  rule  established  for  all  men 
without  distinction:  Whosoever  apprehends  Jesus  in  true  faith  shall  be 
received  into  grace,  sonship  and  heirship,  and  besides  these  no  one  else. 
If  many  shall  do  this,  many  shall  be  elected;  if  all  shall  do  this,  all  shall 
be  elected;  but  because  only  a  few  do  it,  therefore,  and  for  no  other  rea- 
son, only  a  few  are  elected.  The  signers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  have 
testified  in  the  clearest  possible  manner  that  this  is  the  true  Lutheran  doc- 
trine in  contradistinction  to  that  of  the  Calvinists;  and  Missouri  must 
wilfully  kick  against  the  pricks,  if  it  desires  to  demonstrate  its  "mystery 
hovering  over  certain  persons"  into  the  Formula  of  Concord.  As  far  as 
men  are  concerned  it  may  go  on  kicking  much  as  it  pleases,  but  it  will  be 
compelled  to  cease  before  the  judgment  seat  of  God.  Hear  what  the  Wit- 
tenberg fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  of  1596  have  to  say:  "When  we 
speak  of  eternal  predestination  and  election,  we  say  that  God  has  ordamed 
not  certain  persons,  but  all  who  believe  in  Christ  and  persevere  in  faith  to 
the  end,  so  that,  if  more  would  believe  in  Christ,  God  would  not  have 
passed  them  by  in  His  ordination  of  sinners  to  eternal  life,  but  would 
have  included  them  as  well  as  the  rest;  and  if  others  fall  from  grace,  we 
say  that  they  have  never  been  numbered  with  the  Christians  on  account 
of  their  falling  away  which  God  foresaw  from  all  eternity,  but  not  on 
account  of  a  mere  ordination."  (Page  132)  "A  great  difference  between 
our  true  doctrine  and  the  error  of  the  Calvinists  will  be  found  also  when 
the  number  of  the  elect  is  taken  into  consideration.  For  the  Calvinists 
say  that  He  has  elected  certain  persons,  because  the  pleasure  of  His  will 
embraced  these  in  preference  to  others,  without  considering  faith,  and 
that  the  number  of  these  elect  is  so  definite  and  unchangeable  that  it  can 
not  be  increased  or  diminished.  These  views  we  reject  according  to  the 
Word  of  God."     (Page  176). 


548  Intuitu  Fidei. 

Holy  Ghost,  direct  all  men  to  Christ,  as  to  the  Book  of  Life,  in 
which  they  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father.  For  it 
has  been  decided  by  the  Father  from  eternity  that  whom  He 
would  save  He  would  save  through  Christ.  (John  14,  6):  'No 
man  cometh  to  the  Father  but  by  me.'  And  again  (John  10,  9) : 
'I  am  the  door;  by  me,  if  any  man  shall  enter  in,  he  shall  be 
saved.' "  (Note  well  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  states  in  so 
many  words,  that  in  the  call  from  heaven :  "My  Son  ye  shall  hear", 
election  from  heaven  is  revealed.  When,  furthermore,  the 
Formula  of  Concord  says  that  all  men  are  directed  by  the  Holy 
Trinity  to  Christ  as  the  book  of  life,  Missouri  wants  us  to  under- 
stand that  all  men  are  to  find  in  Christ  merely  "a  mystery  hovering 
over  a  few"  without  regard  to  repentance  and  faith.  This  mystery 
is  said  not  only  to  have  been  promised  to  us  in  the  Gospel,  but 
also  confirmed  with  an  oath  (Ez.  33),  and  sealed  by  the  Holy 
Sacraments!  —  Are  those  "certain  persons,  over  whom  hovers 
this  mystery  of  election,  elected  in  Christ  irrespective  of  the  observ- 
ance of  the  order  of  repentance  and  faith?  This  is  what  Missouri 
teaches,  but  not  the  Formula  of  Concord;  for  that  Symbol  ex- 
plains the  rationale  of  election  as  we  see  anon:  "But  Christ  as 
the  only-begotten  Son  of  God  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,, 
has  published  to  us  the  will  of  the  Father,  and  thus  also  our  eternal 
election  to  eternal  life,  viz.  when  He  says  (Mark  1,  15):  'Repent 
ye  and  believe  the  Gospel;  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand.'  He 
also  says  (John  6,  40) :  'This  is  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  that 
every  one  which  seeth  the  Son  and  believeth  on  Him,  may  have 
everlasting  life.'  And  again:  'God  so  loved  the  world,  that  He 
gave  His  only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him 
should  not  perish  but  have  everlasting  life.' .  This  proclamation 
the  Father  wishes  that  all  men  should  hear,  and  that  they  should 
come  to  Christ."     (§§  65-86.     Phila.  ed.,  pp.  660  and  661.) 

What  definition  do  our  eyes  behold  in  utterances  like  these? 
Is  election  here  taken  as  an  absolute  mystery,  which  as  an  ordina- 
tion unto  salvation  hovers  merely  "over  certain  persons"?  Is  it 
not  rather  an  election  strictly  determined  by  the  revealed  will  of 
the  Father:  "Whoever  repents  and  believes  shall  be  saved  (i.  e. 
is  elected)?"  Is  it  not  clearly  an  election  which  has  taken  place, 
not  without,  but  with  explicit  regard  to  faith? 

A  person  would  indeed  be  stricken  with  blindness,  or  his 
desire  to  pervert  must  have  become  a  mania,  if  he  would  under- 
stand the  Formula  of  Concord  to  mean:     Men  are  not  to  seek 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         549 

their  own  election  in  Christ,  which  is  a  possibihty  held  out  to  every- 
one, by  heeding  the  call  of  grace,  repenting  of  their  sins  and 
believing  in  Christ;  but  all  men  should  seek  their  election,  which 
as  an  absolute  mystery  hovers  only  over  certain  persons,  in  Christ 
by  learning  the  truth  of  Him,  that  God  according  to  His  elective 
will,  has  determined  to  ordain  only  a  few  unto  salvation  and  unto 
all  the  means  necessary  to  the  attainment  thereof,  but  that  the 
elect  now  in  time  are  unfailingly  called  to  repentance  and  endowed 
with  it  (without  regard  to  their  own  conduct).  Manifestly  the 
Confession  intends  to  say  the  reverse,  namely  that,  according  to 
the  gracious  will  of  the  Father,  repentance  and  faith  are  open  to 
all  men  as  the  way  unto  Christ,  and  therewith  also  the  way  unto 
election  in  Christ,  who  is  the  true  way  of  life.  To  all  men  the  way 
is  open  to  become  participants  in  the  election  of  God,  for  the  way 
to  faith  in  Christ  is  open  to  them,  and  that  is  the  way  that  leads  to 
Christ  as  the  book  of  life,  so  that  all  men  ought  to  be  and  could 
be  elected  in  Christ,  just  as  they  all  could  be  saved  in  Christ,  if 
they  believed.  For  as  salvation  is  offered  to  them  in  Christ,  thus 
also  election  or  ordination  to  the  same  is  offered,  likewise,  as  a 
possibility  which  all  can  attain  in  Christ  by  hearing  the  Word  and 
coming  to  Jesus,  through  the  new  powers  bestowed  by  the  Word, 
and  permitting  Him  to  help  them. 

"Therefore  no  one  who  would  be  saved,  should  trouble  or 
harass  himself  with  thoughts  concerning  the  secret  counsel  of 
God,  as  to  whether  he  also  is  elected  and  ordained  to  eternal  life, 
for  with  these  miserable  Satan  is  accustomed  to  attack  and  annoy 
godly  hearts.  But  they  should  hear  Christ  (and  in  Him  look 
upon  the  book  of  life  in  which  is  written  the  eternal  election);* 
who  testifies  to  all  men  without  distinction  that  it  is  God's  will 
that  all  men  who  labor  and  are  heavy  laden  with  sin  should  come 
to  Him  in  order  that  He  may  give  them  rest  and  save  them  (Matt. 
2,  28;  Decl.  XI,  §  70.  Phila.  ed.,  p.  661.)  But  if  God  wills  that 
all  men  should  come  to  Christ  and  be  saved,  it  surely  must  have 
been  His  will  to  elect  them  all  in  Christ  unto  salvation,  provided 
they  would  believe.  The  actual  "election",  therefore,  has  taken 
place  with  strict  regard  to  faith  in  Christ.     All  who  shall  believe, 

*  Ut  in  eo  aeternam  patris  praedestinationem  investigent  et  cog- 
noscant.  All,  men,  accordingly,  are  to  seek  their  election  in  Christ  and 
in  the  Gospel,  meaning  that  they  are  to  trace  it,  as  it  were,  to  investigate, 
to  decipher  and  by  accurate  search  to  recognize  and  explore  it,  as  the 
Latin  terms  indicate. 


550  Intuitu  Fidei. 

whether  they  be  all  men,  or  many,  or  only  a  few,  whether  they  be 
Jews  or  Gentiles,  these  or  those  —  all  believers  in  Christ  shall 
have  part  in  the  election  in  Christ.  All  non-believers,  however, 
shall  be  excluded.  For  on  one  hand  God  has  ordained  in  His 
counsel  to  restore  all  those  who  in  true  repentance  and  faith 
apprehend  Jesus,  unto  grace,  sonship  and  heirship  and  to  elect 
them  thereto.  On  the  other  hand  He  has  ordained  in  His  counsel 
also,  to  save  no  one  except  those  who  believe  in  His  Son  Jesus 
Christ.  Hence  where  He  did  not  foresee  faith,  He  did  not  choose 
to  elect;  where  He  was  to  elect.  He  wanted  to  foresee  faith.  For 
it  was  as  true  then  as  it  is  to-day:  "Without  faith  it  is  impossible 
to  please  God"  and  to  be  restored  unto  grace,  sonship  and  heir- 
ship, or  to  be  ordained  thereto. 

Although  the  Formula  of  Concord  does  not  say  in  so  many 
words  that  election  as  an  ordination  of  certain  persons  unto  son- 
ship,  heirship  and  salvation  has  taken  place  in  strict  harmony  with 
the  universal  revealed  order  of  salvation,  which  directs  all  men  to 
Christ  as  their  Savior,  calls  all  men  to  repentance  and  invites  them 
to  faith,  promises  to  all  m.en  all  grace  necessary  for  salvation  and 
offers  it  to  them,  it  is  patent  that  this  is  the  sense  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord.  Therefore  it  points  so  often  to  the  revelation  of  elec- 
tion in  the  Gospel,  links  the  same  in  the  most  intimate  manner 
with  the  revealed  will  of  God  in  reference  to  the  salvation  of  all 
men  through  Christ  and  faith  in  Him,  and  emphasizes  repeatedly 
that  all  men  should  seek,  seek,  seek,  the  election  in  Christ  in  the 
Gospel,  in  the  revealed  will  of  the  Father,  in  the  universal  call  to 
repentance  and  faith,  in  the  universal  promises  of  grace,  in  the 
oath  of  God  (Ez.  33, 11),  in  the  sacraments,  in  short  in  the  univer- 
sal order  of  salvation,  as  it  is  intended  for  all,  and  as  all  can 
and  should  be  saved  through  it.  But  will  all  men  be  able  to  find 
it  there?  To  be  sure,  if  election  is  "a  thing  quite  different'"  from 
the  universal  order  of  salvation,  they  would  seek  in  vain,  nor 
would  they  find  a  syllable  of  an  election  as  pertaining  to  them- 
selves. Missouri's  election  can  not  be  traced  in  the  universal 
order  of  salvation  from  beginning  to  end ;  it  corresponds  with  this 
order  at  no  point;  nowhere  does  it  form  a  piece,  or  a  link,  or  a 
part  of  the  counsel  of  salvation.  It  lies  completely  outside  of 
the  universal  counsel  of  salvation  and  rests  upon  quite  another, 
a  particular,  elective  will  as  its  foundation.  God's  gracious  will 
is  not  for  all  men,  to  firmly  ordain  them  without  regard  to  their 
personal  conduct,  unto  a  whole  series  of  operations  and  blessings 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         551 

of  grace,  and  to  comprehend  the  whole  sum  of  such  blessings  of 
grace  in  one  positive,  absolute,  irrevocable  decree.  If  God  would 
have  had  such  a  gracious  will  toward  all  men,  if  it  had  pleased 
Him  to  place  for  all  alike,  without  consideration  of  their  personal 
conduct,  the  comprehensive  decree  of  election  unto  all  necessary- 
operations  and  blessings  of  grace,  immediately  after  their  redemp- 
tion and  before  the  call  of  grace,  undoubtedly  all  men  would  have 
been  elected  and  all  men  would  be  saved.  But  God  has  in  His 
universal  order  of  salvation  only  one  decree  of  election,  which  is 
ordinate  and  conditional.  It  is  this:  "If",  he  says  to  all  men,  "if 
you  permit  yourselves  to  be  converted,  if  you  apprehend  Jesus  in 
faith,  if  you  persevere  in  faith,  in  short,  if  you  conform  to  the 
universal  order  of  salvation,  you  may  and  shall  be  elected  and 
ordained  unto  salvation."  This  is  the  rule  of  election  in  the  uni- 
versal counsel  of  salvation,  and  to  this  universal,  conditional, 
deferential  rule  of  election  the  Formula  of  Concord  wishes  to  refer 
all  men  (also  the  lect),  so  that  in  this  they  may  recognize  and  seek 
election  as  it  has  really  taken  place. 

Here  lies  the  fundamental  difference  between  Missouri  and 
the  Formula  of  Concord.  Missouri  rejects  the  election,  which 
has  been  clearly  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  in  Christ,  in  the  order  of 
salvation  according  to  the  universal  rule:  Repent  and  believe 
in  Christ,  and  you  shall,  without  fail,  be  elected  and  ordained 
to  salvation.  That,  Missouri  contends,  would  be  the  genuine 
"intuitu  fidei",  whereby  the  "mystery"  is  made  plausible  to  reason. 
It  prefers  to  establish  a  definition  of  election  which  is  a  thing 
quite  different  from  the  universal  counsel  of  salvation,  for  it  is 
utterly  impossible  to  find  the  former  in  the  latter,  it  is  even  diamet- 
rically opposed  to  the  latter  and  subversive  of  the  rule  of  election 
revealed  in  the  latter.  The  rule  of  election  is,  according  to  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  the  will  of  the  Father  clearly  revealed  in  the 
Gospel:  All  those  who  believe  in  Christ,  shall  be  restored  to  grace, 
sonship,  and  inheritance  of  eternal  life.  That  is  the  "right  judg- 
ment", and  the  right  understanding  of  revealed  election  which  all 
men  can  seek  and  find  in  the  Gospel,  in  Christ,  in  the  order  of 
salvation,  for  their  own  salvation.  Missouri,  on  the  other  hand, 
spurns,  reviles,  rejects  this  revealed  rule  of  election,  which  gives 
to  all  men  the  necessary  information  concerning  the  mystery  of 
election,  saying  that  this  has  not  been  the  principle  or  purpose  of 
election,  but  that  God  has  absolutely  elected  and  ordained  certain 


•552  Intuitu  Fidei. 

men,  without  the  previous  consideration  of  their  relation  to  Christ, 
unto  the  entire  series  of  the  blessings  and  operations  of  grace. 

It  is  important  to  add  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  presents 
the  doctrines  of  election  and  justification  as  coniarniatory  and  ex- 
planatory of  each  other.  It  says  (Decl.  XI,  43):  "It  establishes 
very  effectually  the  article  that  we  are  justified  and  saved  without 
our  works  and  merits  of  ours,  purely  out  of  grace  alone,  for 
Christ's  sake.  For  before  the  ages  of  the  world,  before  we  were 
born,  even  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  when 
we  indeed  could  do  nothing  good,  we  were,  according  to  God's 
purpose,  chosen,  out  of  grace,  in  Christ  unto  salvation.  Rom.  9, 
11;  2  Tim.  1,9." 

The  election  of  grace  is  not  an  election  on  account  of  works 
or  of  merits,  but  an  "election  of  grace",  purely  out  of  grace,  for 
the  sake  of  Christ.  Our  own  works  and  merits  are  entirely  ex- 
cluded. Solely  the  merits  and  work  of  Christ  determine  the  elec- 
tion of  grace ;  they  alone  determine  who  shall  and  who  shall  not 
be  ordained  unto  salvation.  The  Formula  of  Concord,  therefore, 
points  to  the  saying  of  Paul:  "For  the  children  being  not  yet 
born,  neither  having  done  good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God 
according  to  election  might  stand,  not  of  works,  but  of  Him  that 
calleth;  it  was  said  of  her,  the  older  shall  serve  the  younger.  As 
it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have  I  hated."  Good 
works  can  accomplish  nothing  in  an  election  of  grace;  for,  if  it 
be  of  grace,  it  cannot  be  of  the  merit  of  works,  otherwise  it  were 
not  grace.  Evil  works  (sin,  transgressions  of  the  law)  cannot 
aboHsh  the  election  of  grace,  for  otherwise  they  could  not  all  be  sin- 
ners and  transgressors  of  the  law  whom  God  has  elected  in  Christ 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid.  If  God  had  chosen 
to  include  some  men  in  consideration  of  their  good  works,  and 
to  exclude  others  in  consideration  of  evil  works.  He  could  not 
have  included  any  one,  but  would  have  been  compelled  to  ex- 
clude them  all,  for  they  are  all  sinners  and  have  come  short  of 
the  glory  of  God.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  justifiction,  in  which 
God  out  of  pure  grace,  only  for  the  sake  of  Jesus  Christ,  accord- 
ing to  the  purpose  of  His  grace,  considers  us  believers  as  just  and 
receives  us  into  grace.  Neither  election  nor  justification  can  be 
earned  by  good  works,  but  both  are  communicated  to  sinners, 
according  to  the  purpose  of  the  Father's  grace  in  Jesus  Christ, 
His  Son. 

Then  also  faith,  Missouri  will  now  clamor,  and  man's  atti- 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Me7i,  Etc.         553 

tude  toward  the  order  of  salvation,  must  be  strictly  excluded  as 
a  condition  or  postulate  from  election,  for  God  has  looked  to 
nothing,  absolutely  nothing,  nor  has  He  required  anything,  when 
He  unfailingly  elected  and  ordained  certain  persons  unto  salva- 
tion and  unto  everything  necessary  for  attaining  it,  viz.  unto  all 
the  operations  and  blessings  of  grace.  If  God  had  chosen  to  see 
first  of  all  who  among  the  called  would  yield  to  the  divine  grace 
and  apprehend  Jesus  in  faith,  and  who  would  not,  making  it 
a  principle  or  rule  of  election  to  elect  only  believers  unto  sonship 
and  heirship,  and  to  exclude  non-believers.  He  would  have  sought 
a  "something  in  us",  a  deed,  a  performance,  a  work,  a  merit,  a 
worthiness  in  us,  and  determined  His  election  accordingly.  Here, 
therefore,  any  regard  to  faith  and  all  conduct  toward  the  order 
of  salvation  must  remain  excluded. 

O  blind  Missourian,  how  has  the  devil  in  his  most  seductive 
mask  of  light,  deceived  you,  so  that  you  cannot  see  the  woods 
on  account  of  the  trees!  Election  and  justification,  both  Scrip- 
ture and  Confession  declare,  confirm  each  other  in  so  far  as  both 
exclude  all  merit  of  our  works  and  permit  nothing  to  reign  but 
grace.  But  can  this  prevent  the  eye  of  God  from  looking  to  faith, 
which  is  nothing  but  the  living  and  moving  of  a  poor  sinner  in 
the  grace  of  God?  Does  not  the  Bible  say  clearly:  "Without 
faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God";  and:  "Lord,  Thy  eyes  look 
to  faith"?  (Are  not  Thy  eyes  upon  the  truth?  Jer.  5,  3.)  Should 
this  looking  for  faith,  this  consideration  of  faith  be  excluded  from 
the  act  of  election,  because  everything  in  us  is  to  be  excluded 
as  a  merit  of  works,  the  same  necessity  would  exist  in  justification 
and  in  the  bestowal  of  salvation.  In  that  case  God  could  never 
look  for  faith  nor  require  it  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  anything 
in  matters  of  our  salvation.  And  I  am  ready  to  believe  that  the 
leaders  of  Missouri  so  understand  the  matter  that  human  faith 
does  not  determine  at  all  who  shall  be  justified  and  saved  in  time, 
and  who  shall  not,  but  that  faith  is  merely  the  instrument  which 
God  employs,  in  order  to  carry  out  and  execute  His  absolute 
decision.  If  God  from  eternity  has  decided  absolutely  who  shall 
be  restored  to  grace,  sonship,  and  heirship  without  regarding  or 
requiring  faith,  why  should  He  be  obligated  to  look  for  faith  or  to 
require  it  now  in  time,  in  order  to  decide  what  to  do  with  sinners? 
According  to  Missourian  methods  of  reasoning  faith  can  impos- 
sibly be  a  factor  in  God's  decision,  as  to  who  shall  be  justified 
and  become  His  child  and  heir.     God  cannot  possibly  recognize 


554  Intuitu  Fidei. 

a  merit  of  works  now  in  time(!)  which  before  time  began  He  re- 
jected in  the  act  of  election,  therefore  He  pays  absolutely  no  heed 
to  either  good  or  evil  conduct  when  instituting  that  great  separa- 
tion among  sinners  through  His  elective  decree,  but  merely  makes 
use  of  His  absolute  sovereignty  (alias  grace),  thus  electing  whom- 
soever He  pleased. 

As  far  as  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  from  teaching:  We 
are  justified  alone  by  grace,  without  merit,  according  to  the  pur- 
pose and  pleasure  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ,  wherefore  it  is  not 
faith  that  makes  the  difference  with  God  or  separates  between 
those  whom  He  actully  desires  to  justify  and  fhose  whom,  in 
spite  of  their  perfect  redemption  in  Christ,  He  does  not  desire 
to  justify;  so  far  also  is  the  same  Symbol  from  making  similar 
deductions  in  the  doctrine  of  election,  never  having  a  thought  of 
denying  that  it  is  the  future  believers  as  such  whom  God  has  de- 
creed in  His  eternal  counsel,  ft)r  Christ's  sake,  to  restore  to  grace, 
sonship,  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal  life.  On  the  contrary, 
the  Formula  of  Concord  brings  out  with  perfect  clearness  the 
complete  harmony  between  these  two  articles  also  in  this  respect. 

In  the  third  article:  "Of  the  Righteousness  of  Faith  before 
God",  the  Formula  of  Concord  repeats  and  emphasizes  time  and 
again  that  it  is  "faith  that  receives  the  grace  of  God  and  the  merits 
of  Christ  offered  in  the  promise  of  the  Gospel  as  a  gift  of  God, 
whence  (unde)  we  obtain  reconciliation  with  God,  sonship  and 
heirship  of  eternal  life."  It  says  that,  according  to  St.  Paul's 
doctrine  (Rom.  4,  G),  we  receive  salvation  "in  just  the  same  way 
as  righteousness"  (eodem  prorsus  modo);  "yea,  that  precisely  by 
this  means,  when  we  are  justified  by  faith,  we  receive  adoption 
and  heirship  of  eternal  life  and  salvation."     (Phila.  ed.,  p.  579.) 

Precisely  the  same  is  taught  by  the  Formula  of  Concord 
also  in  the  eleventh  article,  where,  according  to  its  definition  of 
election  in  a  wider  sense,  an  appropriate  place,  in  the  general 
chain  of  the  Eternal  Purpose  relative  to  human  salvation  is  as- 
signed to  the  selective,  separative  decree,  by  which  sonship  and 
heirship  are  conferred.  The  well  known  eight  points  are  so  many 
requisites  (requisita)  of  election  in  the  wider  sense,  so  many  grades 
(gradus),  on  which  the  act  of  election,  in  accordance  with  the 
purpose  of  divine  grace  (John  3,  16),  progresses  in  regular  order, 
until  it  is  consummated  in  election  unto  the  infallible  attainment 
of  eternal  glory.  The  foundation,  the  grace  of  God  and  the  merits 
of  Christ  bear,  beyond  a  doubt,  the  whole  superstructure;  for 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         555 

God's  Word,  sacrament,  repentance,  faith,  hearing  of  prayer,  per- 
severance, are  altogether  operations  of  grace  by  virtue  of  His  or- 
der of  salvation  established  upon  the  foundation  of  the  universal 
redemption  of  Christ  for  all  men  without  distinction.  The  foun- 
dation, therefore,  is  universal  and  consequently  conditions  from 
the  outset  the  gracious  purpose  of  God  and,  corresponding  with 
this,  the  possibility  for  all  men  to  be  saved  through  Christ,  and 
to  be  received  unto  sonship  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal  life 
in  exactly  the  same  order,  manner,  and  method,  just  as  they  all 
have  been  redeemed  by  Christ. 

Where  the  Formula  of  Concord  treats  of  the  order  of  sal- 
vation established  for  all  men,  according  to  which  all  men  could 
and  should  have  been  elected  and  saved,  it  does  not  introduce 
the  elective  decree  among  the  common  multitude  of  sinners 
standing,  without  distinction,  before  God's  eyes  without  repent- 
ance and  faith:  These  or  those  persons,  in  this  common  multi- 
tude, shall  now  (without  regarding  faith  and  repentance)  be 
elected  to  sonship  and  salvation  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  and  shall 
on  this  account  be  preordained  now  unto  repentance  and  faith. 
That  would  be  nothing  but  the  Calvinistic  "review,"  which  the 
Formula  of  Concord  in  its  whole  presentation  rejects  and  com- 
bats. For  this  Calvinistic  review  has  its  initial  stage  in  the 
fallen  promiscuous  multitude,  and  its  last  in  the  unfailing  enjoy- 
ment of  the  blessings  of  salvation.  No;  where  the  Formula 
of  Concord  indicates  the  general  order  of  election,  according 
to  which  God  1)  desired  to  ordain  unto  salvation  all  men,  with- 
out distinction,  and  according  to  which  2)  the  elect  have  actually 
been  ordained,  it  is  stated  clearly  and  unmistakably  that  God, 
in  His  eternal  counsel,  has  decreed  and  acted  according  to  no 
rule  but  this,  "that  He  was  pleased  to  justify,  to  receive  into 
grace,  sonship  and  inheritance  of  eternal  life  all  those  who,  in 
true  repentance,  would  apprehend  Jesus  Christ  through  faith." 

This  and  no  other  was  the  order  of  election,  which  has 
been  revealed  in  the  Gospel  for  the  benefit  of  all  men,  and  accord- 
ing to  which  all  can  and  should  seek  in  Christ  the  eternal  elec- 
tion of  the  Father.  Away,  therefore,  with  all  devilish,  pernicious 
thoughts  of  a  review  held  among  men  while  still  in  the  same 
condition,  according  to  God's  mere  absolute  authority:  "This 
one  shall  be  received  into  sonship,  heirship,  repentance,  faith 
and  salvation,  this  one  shall  not."  Away  with  that  doctrine 
which  sends  forth  fiery  clouds  of  satanic  darts  by  producing  the 


556  Inhdtu  Fidei. 

impression  that  God,  without  regard  to  His  universal  order  of 
grace,  and,  therefore,  without  regard  to  repentance  and  faith 
in  Christ,  has  simply  selected  here  this,  there  that  sinner,  and 
for  this  reason  ordained  only  these  and  no  others  to  the  whole 
way  of  salvation  with  all  its  stages.  Away  with  this  absolutism, 
away  with  this  Calvinism,  this  spectre  of  an  election  embracing 
only  certain  sinners  as  such  and  hovering  over  them  as  an 
entirely  undisclosed  mystery  without  regard  to  the  revealed 
order  for  conferring  sonship  and  heirship!  Woe  to  those  who 
seek  to  smuggle  back  into  the  Church  this  Calvinistic  spectre 
which  was  expelled  from  the  Lutheran  Church  by  this  very 
Formula  of  Concord! 

The  Formula  of  Concord  teaches,  to  be  sure,  that  God,  alone 
of  His  great  grace,  without  our  merit  or  good  works,  elects, 
justifies  and  saves  sinners,  according  to  the  purpose  of  His  grace 
and  pleasure  in  Christ,  so  that  it  is  wrong  and  false  when,  in 
this  respect,  a  cause  of  election,  justification,  or  salvation,  is 
placed  in  ourselves.  But  the  Confession  does  not  thereby  deny, 
like  Missouri  with  its  questionable  deduction,  that  believers  in 
Christ  as  such  are  the  only  persons  who,  according  to  the  pur- 
pose of  divine  grace  in  Christ,  have  been  lifted  out  of  the  common 
multitude  of  sinners.  The  Formula  of  Concord  itself  gives  us 
this  assurance,  partly  m  so  many  clear  words,  and  partly  by 
definitely  stating  the  principle,  that  "by  grace  alone"  in  no  wise 
conflicts  with  "through  faith,"  but  rather  confirms  and  includes  it. 

Or  shall  we  presume  that  it  has  not  baen  the  intention  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord,  in  the  fourth  paragraph,  to  especially 
characterize  and  mark  those  sinners,  with  reference  to  whom 
God  in  His  eternal  counsel  formed  His  decree  concerning  son- 
ship  and  heirship?  Is  the  phrase:  "All  those  who  in  true  faith 
apprehend  Jesus  Christ"  an  equivalent  of:  "certain  persons"  or 
certain  men?  Should  the  Formula  of  Concord  refrain  from 
connecting  the  separation  of  the  elect  from  the  non-elect  with 
the  difference  existing  in  time  between  believers  and  non-believ- 
ers? Should,  according  to  the  Formula  of  Concord,  the  dis- 
cretio  personarum  (separation  of  persons)  into  those  who  are  to 
be  saved  and  those  who  fail  of  .salvation  set  in  arbitrarily  where 
all  sinners  stand  before  God's  eyes  as  a  promiscuous  multitude 
without  faith?  The  Formula  of  Concord  clearly  declares  who 
is  included  in  the  elective  decree  for  sonship  and  heirship,  namely 
all  those  who,  "in  true  repentance  and  right  faith  apprehend 


Is  the  Doctri7ie  that  God  has  Elected  Me?i,  Etc.         557 

Jesus  Christ,"  as  it  is  written:  "As  many  as  received  Him,  to 
them  He  gave  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God."  It  states 
with  equal  explicitness  who  is  to  be  excluded  from  the  sepa- 
rative decree  of  the  Father,  in  accordance  with  His  purpose,  de- 
claring that  we  should  "seek  in  Christ  the  eternal  election  of  the 
Father,"  namely  because  the  Father  has  resolved  in  His  eternal 
counsel  "to  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowledge  and  truly 
believe  in  Christ."  This  separative  election,  this  selective  decree 
dividing  mankind  into  heirs  and  non-heirs  embraces  logically 
none  but  believers  in  Christ  as  such,  and,  for  this  reason  and 
only  for  this  reason,  it  excludes  from  the  saving  blessing  of  the 
eternal  election  unto  sonship  and  heirship  all  those  who,  in  time, 
do  not  believe  in  Jesus  Christ.  In  this  way  "by  grace  alone" 
and  "according  to  the  purpose  of  His  grace  and  pleasure  in 
Christ"  remain  standing  firmly  and  irrefragably  on  the  one 
hand,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  equally  necessary  and  scrip- 
tural, "all  those  who  apprehend  Jesus  Christ  in  right  faith." 
To  be  sure,  the  merits  of  Christ  are  to  be  entirely  sundered  from 
our  works,  and  the  honor  for  our  election,  justification,  and  sal- 
vation is  to  be  given  alone  to  Christ,  but  not  as  if  the  excluding 
phrases,  "by  grace,  without  the  law,  without  works,  not  of 
works,"  were  in  contradiction  to  faith,  or  excluded  the  consid- 
eration of  faith  from  the  saving  operations  of  divine  grace.  For 
the  Epitome  says  plainly  (Ep.  Ill,  7  and  10):  "All  these  words, 
taken  together,  mean  that  we  are  justified  and  saved  alone  by 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ."  Therefore  the  phrase,  "by  grace"  or 
"according  to  the  purpose"  sinners  are  elected  means  as  much 
as  by  faith  alone,  without  works  and  merits  of  their  own,  shall 
sinners  be  elected  and  ordained  to  sonship  and  heirship.  If  it 
had  not  been  the  purpose  of  divine  grace,  "by  faith  alone"  to 
decree  and  receive  sinners  into  sonship  and  heirship,  the  unbe- 
lief of  the  non-elect  would  surely  not  have  been  able  to  exclude 
them  from  the  decree  conferring  these  gifts.  The  want  of  any- 
thing which  was  not  considered  in  the  act  of  election  itself  can 
not  prevent  the  carrying  out  of  its  provisions.  If  this  is  the 
case  notwithstanding,  cognizance  has  been  taken  in  the  act 
accordingly. 

If  the  Confession  teaches  that  the  Gospel  reveals  to  all  men 
the  order  of  the  election  of  grace  in  Christ  Jesus  by  pointing 
out  to  them  the  order  of  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ  as  the 
universal  way  to  salvation,  the  Confession  teaches  by  that  also. 


558  Intuitu  Fidei. 

that  God  has  actually  ordained  unto  sonship,  heirship,  and  sal- 
vation, these  and  not  those,  according  as  He  foresaw  who  would 
apprehend  Jesus,  and  who  would  not.  God  does  not  deceive 
us  with  His  revealed  order  of  election,  but  in  His  elective  decree 
really  follows  His  universal  order,  of  which  this  is  a  chief  article, 
that  only  those  who  apprehend  Jesus  shall  become  heirs  of  God 
and  heirs  of  salvation.  The  proposition,  "God  has  ordained  in 
His  elective  decree  to  elect  to  salvation  all  those  who  believe 
in  Christ  and  no  one  else"  is  practically  equivalent  to  the  other, 
"God  has  elected  only  such  sinners  to  sonship  and  heirship  of 
whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would  believe  in  Christ."  The  Con- 
fession, therefore,  nowhere  rejects  the  idea  that  God's  eternal 
foreknowledge  had  its  place  in  the  counsel  of  election,  but  merely 
maintains  that  we  men  should  not  deal  with  the  mysterious  side 
of  the  act  of  election,  nor  seek  to  make  sure  of  our  election 
by  speculating  about  things  that  are  hidden  in  the  depths  of  the 
divine  foreknowledge.  Together  with  all  others  we  are  to  cling 
to  the  universal  order  of  salvation  which  has  been  revealed  in 
the  Gospel,  and  are  to  seek  our  salvation  in  that.  God's  fore- 
knowledge makes  no  change  in  this  fixed  order,  nor  does  it  add 
anything,  neither  does  it  take  anything  away,  but  merely  applies 
this  order  to  the  whole  human  race,  even  where  its  course  lies 
among  incomprehensible  judgments  and  unsearchable  ways. 

The  great  aim  of  the  eleventh  article  is  manifestly  to  present 
the  ordination  of  all  believers  unto  sonship  and  heirship,  which 
has  been  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  as  the  only  side  of  the  mystery 
of  election  which  is  conducive  to  our  comfort  and  advantage, 
and  to  vindicate  this  truth  against  all  attempts  to  dabble  in  mys- 
teries. This  is  the  trend  of  the  whole  arrangement  and  of  all 
subordinate  sections  illustrating  the  chief  thought.  In  the 
fourth  paragraph  especially  this  central  principle  is  enunciated 
in  clear  words:  Ordination  unto  sonship  embraces  believers  only. 

Here  we  might  conclude,  but  we  think  it  appropriate  to 
bestow  a  little  attention  upon  Missouri's  abuse  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord. 

VI. 

According  to  our  promise  we  have  the  duty  of  furnishing 
proof  that  Missouri  is  guilty  of  misusing  the  Confession  by  en- 
deavoring to  prove  from  it  her  theory  of  the  election  of  grace. 


Is  the  Doctriyie  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         559 

We  confine  our  attention  to  the  chief  point,  the  idea  of  election 
unto  sonship  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal  life. 

That  this  election  (Auswahl,  ekloge,  electio)  is  a  separation 
(separatio,  segregatio)  of  certain  sinners  from  the  whole  multi- 
tude for  the  purpose  of  exclusive  salvation,  is  a  self-evident  truth, 
which,  at  this  day,  is  not  called  in  question  by  any  one.  The 
question  is  merely  as  to  the  underlying  principles  of  this  separa- 
tion. When  the  Calvinists  said  that  this  separation  is  arbitrary, 
unconditional,  absolute  in  its  relation  to  men,  our  Lutheran  fath- 
ers replied:  "No;  this  separation  has  taken  place  in  and  after  the 
consideration  of  future  faith  in  Christ."  When  the  Calvinists 
further  contended:  "But  faith  is  a  free  gift  which  God  bestows 
upon  whomsoever  He  pleases",  they  would  answer:  "To  be 
sure,  faith  is  a  gift  of  God,  but  He  holds  up  faith  to  all  the  called 
and  is  willing  to  give  it  to  all;  however  He  does  not  coerce  the 
acceptance  of  this  gift,  inasmuch  as  faith  is  not  wrought  in  an 
irresistible  manner,  nor  by  irresistible  force,  but  through  certain 
ordained  means  which  man  is  to  use,  and  through  a  power  of  grace 
which  man  is  able  to  resist. 

This  doctrine  the  Calvinists  rejected  as  Pelagianism.  Ac- 
cording to  that  view,  they  held,  the  conduct  of  man  is  a  cause  of 
salvation,  and  God  has  had  regard  to  human  conduct,  partly  in 
the  predestination  of  salvation,  partly  in  the  execution  of  the 
order  of  salvation,  thus  letting  the  actual  execution  of  His  gra- 
cious will  depend  upon  the  desire  of  the  person  called,  to  be,  or 
not  to  be,  saved.  But  by  that  the  sole  efficacy  of  grace  has 
ceased  to  be  recognized  and  the  doors  are  opened  to  Pelagianism. 
No  proof  is  necessary  that  Missouri,  in  this  respect,  does  not  walk 
to-day  in  the  footsteps  of  our  Lutheran  fathers,  but  in  those  of 
the  Calvinists.  The  fundamental  idea  in  its  system,  in  as  far  as 
Missouri  can  be  acknowledged  to  have  a  system  at  all,  is  no  other 
than  that  of  the  Calvinists:  Unconditional,  absolute  grace,  not 
merely  as  regards  the  universal  benevolence  of  God,  which,  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  embraces  all  men,  but  also  as  regards  the 
operations  of  grace  upon  the  individual,  or  the  complete  execu- 
tion of  the  order  of  salvation.  Just  as  arbitrary,  unconditional 
and  absolute  as  is  universal  grace,  so  also  the  application  of  the 
several  elements  of  the  order  of  salvation  is  alleged  to  be  for  the 
elect — but  only  for  the  elect! 

Our  Lutheran  fathers  never  wavered  in  maintaining  the 
truth,  that  the  separation  unto  salvation  closely  corresponds  with, 


560  Intuitu  Fidei. 

and  reflects,  the  universal  order  of  salvation.  Lutheran  theology 
at  that  time  knew  nothing  about  a  twofold  counsel,  or  about  a 
counsel  and  a  purpose  as  two  different  things.  Only  one  coun- 
sel of  salvation  was  known,  namely  that  which  is  the  same  for 
all  men;  and  a  constituent  part  of  this  counsel  was,  according 
to  our  Lutheran  fathers,  the  purpose  to  save  all  those  who  per- 
severingly  believe  in  Christ  and  besides  them  no  one.  They 
gave  prominence  to  the  revelation  of  election  in  the  Gospel,  which 
concerns  all  men  and  discloses  to  all  the  way  of  salvation,  a  reve- 
lation which  has  received  clear  expression  in  the  disclosure  of  the 
purpose  that  all  men  who  accept,  by  faith,  the  Son  of  God  as  their 
Savior,  and  none  besides,  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation.  This  uni- 
versal purpose  they  used,  in  the  presentation  of  the  elective  decree 
as  the  major  premise;  the  foreknowledge  of  actual  faith  in. 
time  as  the  minor  premise;  and  from  these  two,  the  universal 
purpose  and  the  foreknowledge  of  faith,  they  drew  the  conclusion 
embodying  the  elective  decree  proper:  These  individual  persons 
(the  individual  foreseen  believers)  shall  be  elected  to  eternal  life 
in  preference  to  the  rest  (prae  caeteris).  In  the  nature  of  the  case 
foreknowledge  on  the  part  of  God  implied  an  element  of  liberty 
on  the  part  of  man,  namely  the  liberty  of  coming  to  faith  and 
persevering  therein  through  the  grace  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost 
proffered  in  the  call,  or,  foreclosing  the  way  to  the  Spirit  of  grace 
through  wilful  malice  and  of  preventing  His  performing  His 
work.  Our  fathers  taught  both  that  the  call  of  divine  grace, 
owing  to  its  universal  sufficiency,  enabled  not  alone  the  elect  but 
all  the  called  to  be  converted  and  saved,  and,  in  the  second  place, 
that  all  the  called,  and  not  only  the  non-elect,  can  if  they  so 
choose,  reject  the  call  of  grace  without  restraint  and  hindrance, 
and  thus  forfeit  and  lose  their  souls'  salvation.  And  since  God 
neither  saves  the  former  by  an  irresistible  grace,  nor  offers  the 
latter  a  kind  of  grace  which  really  is  insufficient,  therefore,  the 
called  are  confronted  by  the  great  choice,  either  to  permit  their 
salvation  according  to  the  universal  order  of  salvation  and  by 
the  means  prescribed  therein,  or  to  reject  and  frustrate,  in  the 
free  use  of  their  liberty,  the  counsel  of  salvation  which  saving 
love  has  conceived.  This  being  so,  God,  in  eternity,  was  con- 
strained to  see  and  inquire  beforehand  what  each  individual 
called  would  do  in  time  and  how  he  would  conduct  himself,  in 
order  to  preordain  in  His  eternal  purpose,  according  to  His  fore- 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         561 

knowledge,  who  among  the  called  should  be  the  elect.  And  thus 
"it  was  that  many  were  called,  but  few  chosen. 

At  no  point  this  fundamental  principle  of  the  doctrine  of 
election  as  held  by  the  fathers,  is  so  sharply  emphasized  as  in 
the  stress  which  they  unceasingly  laid  upon  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  antecedent  and  subsequent  will  of  God.  In  this  dis- 
tinction the  very  marrow  of  the  difiference  between  Calvinism  and 
Lutheranism  has  been  brought  out.  Therefore  the  Calvinists 
have  hated  this  distinction  from  the  beginning  and  considered 
it  a  fundamental  heresy.  In  the  nature  of  the  case  this  is  also  the 
misfortune  of  Missouri.  For,  in  the  first  place,  to  reject  all  con- 
sideration of  the  attitude  of  men  in  matters  pertaining  to  their 
salvation,  and  then  to  distinguish  between  an  antecedent  and  a 
subsequent  will  in  reference  to  the  subjects  of  salvation,  would 
be  a  contradiction  too  plain  and  manifest  for  Missouri  to  father, 
in  spite  of  its  penchant  for  mysteries  and  contradictions.  It  pre- 
fers to  take  recourse  to  the  miserable  subterfuge,  that  this  dis- 
tinction applies  only  to  the  non-elect,  since  God  desired  the  sal- 
vation of  these  also,  but  desired  to  decree  and  do  things  differ- 
ently notwithstanding,  on  account  of  their  evil  conduct. 

That  this  is  nothing  but  a  miserable  subterfuge,  can  be  seen 
from  the  fact  that  the  antecedent  will  of  God,  according  to  which 
God  wills  that  no  one  should  perish,  is  the  same  with  reference  to 
all  men.  In  as  far  as  God  wills  that  all  men  should  be  saved.  He 
wills  it  in  reference  to  all  in  the  same  manner  and  order  of  means, 
no  exception  being  made  in  favor  of,  or  against,  any  one.  This 
antecedent  will  must  either  exclude,  in  reference  to  all,  any  con- 
sideration of  their  conduct,  or  presuppose,  in  reference  to  all,  a 
certain  consideration  of  conduct  as  a  preliminary  condition  of  its 
execution. 

Either  God  says  to  the  elect  in  virtue  of  His  antecedent  will: 
I  promise  you  my  grace  for  your  conversion  and  salvation  in  such 
a  way,  that  I  shall  pay  no  attention  whatever  to  your  attitude 
toward  the  call  of  my  grace;  I  shall  absolutely  and  uncondition- 
ally, convert  and  save  you  under  any  consideration.  But  if  God 
says  this  to  the  elect  according  to  His  antecedent  will.  He  says 
it  to  all  men,  and  the  great  Missourian  mystery  resolves  itself 
into  this,  that  God  says  one  thing  and  does  another.  Missouri, 
in  this  matter,  brands  God  as  a  liar.  It  makes  Him  first  promise 
to  all  men,  according  to  His  universal  saving  grace,  that  He  wills 
to  save  them  all  of  His  grace,  that  means  without  regard  to  their 


562  Intuitu  Fidei. 

conduct,  and  afterward  it  lets  Him  become  entirely  unfaithful  to 
His  promise,  when  the  fulfillment  is  to  receive  tangible  shape. 
For  God  does  not  save  all  men  of  His  grace  in  the  Missourian 
sense,  namely  without  regard  to  their  conduct,  for,  in  the  case  of 
the  vast  majority,  He  so  strictly  regards  their  conduct  that,  on 
account  of  it,  He  neither  wills  nor  grants  their  salvation. 

But  if  God,  on  the  other  hand,  has  told  the  non-elect:  "I 
earnestly  desire  your  salvation,  but  I  do  not  exclude  by  the 
bestowal  of  my  saving  grace  all  consideration  of  your  attitude 
toward  the  means  and  order  of  my  grace,  but  rather  beseech  and 
exhort  you,  that  you  should  willingly  adjust  yourselves  to  the 
order  of  salvation  and  persevere  in  the  same  till  the  end." — if,  I 
say,  God  has  spoken,  in  this  fashion  to  the  non-elect,  in  virtue  of 
His  antecedent  will,  and  promised  them  their  salvation  only  in 
this  limited  and  conditional  sense,  He  has  said  the  same  pre- 
cisely to  the  elect  also,  and  deals  with  them  according  to  the  prin- 
ciples here  enunciated.  God  is  faithful:  He  has  neither  prom- 
ised anything  to  the  non-elect  which  He  afterwards  regrettea, 
nor  has  He,  from  the  outset,  promised  more  to  the  elect  than 
to  the  rest — as  far  as  His  antecedent  will  is  concerned. 

This  is  the  main  point  which  brings  out  the  shameful  abuse 
our  Confession  has  suffered  at  the  hands  of  Missouri. 

When,  in  the  year  1879,  we  were  asked  by  Dr.  Walther  to 
present  our  side  in  the  predestination  controversy  in  the  form  of 
theses,  then  already  attention  was  called  by  us  to  this  main  point. 
Our  third  antithesis  had  at  that  time  already  the  form  here  given : 
"It  is  of  the  greatest  importance  for  the  scriptural  presentation 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  election  of  grace,  that  we  pay  strict  atten- 
tion to  the  distinction  between  the  antecedent  and  subsequent  will 
of  God's  grace,  or  to  the  universal  and  particular  will  of  God,  since 
the  latter,  as  the  proximate  cause  and  norm  of  election  in  the 
narrowest  sense,  is  based  upon  the  divergent  conduct  of  men 
toward  universal  grace." 

Since  that  time  Missouri  has  not  ceased  to  declare  that  the 
fathers  are  really  quite  in  accord  with  her,  but  the  fact  remains 
nevertheless  that  she  has  rejected  the  distinction  between  the 
antecedent  and  subsequent  will  of  God  as  made  by  the  fathers. 
For  if  Missouri  had  admitted  this  distinction  as  correct,  it  would 
have  been  compelled  to  abandon  its  whole  theory.  No  more 
decided  contradiction  can  be  conceived  than  that  which  exists 
between  the  well-known  distinction  of  the  fathers  and  the  Mis- 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         563 

sourian  doctrine  concerning  the  election  of  grace.  The  very 
thing  the  fathers  decided  to  teach  by  their  distinctions,  Missouri 
rejects  emphatically  as  an  effort  at  mediation,  Pelagian  in  char- 
acter. And  what  the  fathers  rejected,  Missouri  desires  to  teach^ 
namely  an  unrevealed  and  irreconcilable  mystery  standing^ 
between  the  universal  will  of  grace  and  election  in  the  narrow 
,  sense. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  already  teaches  most  positively 
what  the  fathers  tried  to  teach  by  using  this  distinction,  what 
Missouri,  however,  looks  upon  as  the  heretical  a  b  c  of  all  syn- 
ergistic-Pelagian  doctrine.  The  Confession  maintains  1)  that 
God's  will  respecting  the  salvation  of  sinners  (antecedent  will) 
is  universal  from  the  outset;  2)  that  God,  in  a  certain  sense, 
wills  to  save  only  the  elect;  3)  that  these  two  wills  of  God  are 
not  contradictory  wills  of  God  (contradictorige  voluntates),  but 
that  the  subsequent  will  quite  naturally  flows  from  the  ante- 
cedent will,  being,  as  it  were,  the  application  of  the  same.  Indeed 
the  latter  is  not  applied  without  the  consideration  of  the  conduct 
of  men,  otherwise  the  elective  will  would  embrace  all  men  like 
the  antecedent  will.  That  the  two  expressions  "antecedent"  and 
"subsequent  will"  are  not  found  in  the  Confession,  only  a  par- 
tisan Missourian  can  adduce  as  an  argument  to  substantiate  the 
claim  that  the  matter  itself  is  not  found  there,  or  that  it  is  a 
departure  from  the  Confession  or  even  in  opposition  to  it.  The 
fathers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  themselves  have  given  cur- 
rency to  the  expression  and  vindicated  it  again  and  again  by 
recourse  to  the  Confession  composed  and  signed  by  themselves, 
preeminently  Selnecker,  and  the  Wittenberg  and  Wuertemberg 
theologians.  A  person  could  say  with  the  same  right  that 
Luther  did  not  know  anything  of  this  distinction,  though  he 
writes  clearly  and  plainly:  "Therefore  quite  a  different  meaning 
must  be  found  in  the  saying:  Many  are  called,  but  few  are 
chosen.  For  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  is  general  and  public 
and  intended  for  whosoever  is  willing  to  receive  it.  And  God 
has  it  preached  generally  and  publicly  for  the  purpose  that 
every  man  should  believe,  receive,  and  be  saved  by  it.  But 
what  is  the  actual  result?  We  are  told  afterward  in  the  Gospel: 
'Few  are  chosen'  ;  few  so  conduct  themselves  toward  the  Gospel 
that  God  is  well  pleased  with  them;  for  some  hear  it  and  do 
not  esteem  it;  some  hear  it  and  do  not  hold  fast  to  it,  refusing 
to  do  or  suffer  anything  for  the  sake  of  it.     Some  hear  it,  but 


564  Intuitu  Fidei. 

pay  more  attention  to  money  and  goods  and  sensual  pleasures. 
But  that  does  not  please  God,  and  He  does  not  take  pleasure 
in  such  people.  That  is  what  Christ  calls,  not  to  be  'chosen,' 
namely  not  to  conduct  oneself  so  that  God  could  take  pleasure 
in  him.  But  these  are  the  elect,  in  whom  God  takes  pleasure, 
who  diligently  hear  the  Gospel,  believe  in  Christ,  prove  their 
faith  by  its  fruits,  and  suffer  on  account  of  it  what  providence 
has  ordained."     (Hauspostille,  Sept.) 

The  way  of  salvation  includes  all  the  stages  of  the  order 
of  grace  from  the  proclamation  of  the  call  of  grace  up  to  glori- 
fication. The  question  is,  has  God  in  His  final  decree  respecting 
the  carrying  into  efifect  of  this  whole  order,  in  any  manner,  taken 
into  consideration  the  conduct  of  the  called?  We  answer  with 
our  fathers  Yes.  Missouri  replies  with  the  champions  of  Cal- 
vinism No.  It  appeals  to  the  Lutheran  Confession,  but  in  so 
doing  becomes  guilty  of  grossly  abusing  this  Confession. 

In  order  to  prove  this  conclusively  we  need  refer  only  to 
one  point,  for  instance  the  free  use  of  the  means  of  grace  both 
for  the  purpose  of  coming  to  faith  and  of  persevering  therein. 
The  simple  question  is:  Has  God  willed  to  decree  the  sure  con- 
version and  perseverance  of  all  men  without  taking  into  con- 
sideration their  conduct  toward  the  means  of  grace?  without 
first  inquiring  how  the  called  themselves  will  conduct  themselves 
in  this  respect?  Surely  not,  we  answer.  Missouri  teaches  so,  it 
is  true,  but  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession  do  not. 

In  the  second  article  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  the  propo- 
sition is  dwelt  on  at  some  length  that,  in  the  question  of  con- 
version, not  only  purpose,  effect,  and  the  means  for  the  work 
must 'be  taken  into  consideration,  but  also  the  manner  of  our 
conduct  toward  such  means,  as  to  whether  we  rightly  use  them 
or  not.  Special  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  hberty  that  even  the 
unregenerate  sinner  has  as  regards  the  prescribed  use  of  the 
means  of  grace,  in  being  able  to  submit  to  the  gracious  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  least  outwardly,  or  in  withdrawing 
himself  from  this  operation  entirely.  The  eleventh  article  also 
refers  to  this  point  repeatedly  and  even  explains  the  particularism 
of  election  (that  only  few  are  chosen)  "that  so  many  of  the  called" 
(note:  not  all)  "foreclose  to  the  Holy  Ghost  the  ordinary  way, 
so  that  He  can  not  efifect  His  work  in  them."  (Ep.  XI,  11; 
Decl.  XI,  34-42.) 

God,  therefore,  in  His  final  decree  as  to  who  shall  be  con- 


Is  the  Doctrine  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         565 

verted  and  come  to  faith  and  who  not,  has  been  very  strict  to 
look  and  inquire  how^  the  called  themselves  will  conduct  them- 
selves toward  the  ordinary  means  (media  ordinata).  This  is  not 
to  be  understood,  as  Missouri  sometimes  perverts  the  matter, 
as  if  we  looked  upon  such  conduct  as  a  meritorious  or  efficient 
cause  of  conversion;  but  God  wants  to  save  His  reasonable  and 
personally  responsible  creature  only  by  such  means  as  man  can 
either  freely  use  or  spurn.  According  to  His  antecedent  will 
God  wills  the  conversion  of  all  men  through  these  means;  but 
according  to  His  subsequent  will,  which  makes  the  final  decision. 
He  actually  wills  to  convert  only  those  individuals  who  use  the 
ordained  means  in  the  prescribed  manner.  The  limitation 
embraced  in  the  subsequent  will  or  decree  of  God  is  based  upon 
the  fact  that  God  has  left  it  to  the  liberty  of  the  called  either  to 
use  the  ordinary  means,  through  which  alone  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  pleased  to  operate,  or  to  push  them  unused  aside.  This  will 
of  God  with  its  deferential  attitude  toward  the  conduct  of  men 
presupposes  on  man's  side,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  a 
corresponding  conduct  toward  the  means  of  grace  as  an  abso- 
lute condition  of  actual  conversion.  The  conception  of  the  order 
of  salvation,  just  as  that  of  resistible  grace,  involves,  therefore, 
a  certain  consideration  on  the  part  of  God  of  the  free  conduct 
of  man  as  that  of  a  reasonable,  personal  creature  gifted  with 
a  sense  of  his  volition  and  responsibility.  Such  a  creature  is 
not  to  be  saved  by  coercion  and  force,  but  in  a  manner  corre- 
sponding with  the  divine  plan  of  salvation.  The  third  article 
does  not  subvert  the  first,  nor  does  it  set  the  first  aside. 

Still  greater  prominence  is  given  in  the  seventh  point  of 
the  teaching  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  to  the  fact,  that  God, 
in  His  will  and  decree,  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the 
order  of  salvation,  has  regard  to  man's  conduct,  which  is  the 
correlate  of  his  liberty  as  a  responsible  person.  We  read  in  so 
many  words  concerning  the  last  link  of  the  elective  chain,  or 
glorification :  "That  the  good  work  which  He  has  begun  in  them, 
He  would  strengthen,  increase  and  support  to  the  end,  if  they 
(Si  modo)  observe  God's  Word,  pray  diligently,  abide  in  God's 
goodness  (grace)  and  faithfully  use  the  gifts  received."  (Phila. 
ed.,  p.  653.) 

This  one  sentence  is  sufficient  to  break  the  neck  of  the  claim 
of  the  Missouri  doctrine,  that  it  harmonizes  with  the  Symbol.  If 
a  chain  consisting  of  so  many  links  is  to  have  a  certain  amount 


566  Intuitu  Fidei. 

of  strength,  every  link  must  have  the  intended  amount  of  strength. 
If  there  is  only  one  link  in  the  chain  which  lacks  the  required 
strength,  whether  it  be  the  first  or  last  or  one  of  the  centre 
the  whole  chain  lacks  the  required  strength.  For  the  strength 
of  a  chain  is  determined  not  by  some  links  which  are  possibly 
very  strong,  but  by  the  weakest  link  in  the  whole  chain.  The 
several  stages  of  the  order  of  salvation,  now,  as  enumerated  in 
the  well-knov/n  eight  points,  are  a  chain  consisting  of  so  many 
links.  But  the  election  of  grace  extends  as  a  final,  irreversible 
decree  of  election  over  all  these  stages.  Whoever,  therefore, 
maintains,  that  this  election  of  grace  as  a  whole  has  taken  place 
without  any  consideration  of  the  conduct  of  the  called,  maintains 
by  that  at  the  same  time,  that  there  is  no  section  in  the  whole 
way  of  salvation,  in  which  their  conduct  has  been  considered 
with  reference  to  their  salvation.  For  if  anything  had  depended 
upon  the  conduct  of  man  only  in  one  link  of  the  chain,  for 
instance  in  conversion  or  in  perseverance,  it  would  be  folly  to 
predicate  of  the  whole  chain  of  divine  election  that,  when  it 
was  forged,  consideration  of  man's  conduct  had  not  been  welded 
in  as  a  constiuent  part.  That  would  be  the  same,  as  if  a  man 
would  maintain.  Yes  this  one  link  is  frail  and  weak,  but  that 
does  not  afifect  the  strength  of  the  whole  chain,  it  is  a  very  strong 
chain  in  spite  of  the  weakness  of  one  of  its  links. 

The  application  is  easily  made.  The  decree  of  glorification 
is  an  individual  link  in  the  chain  of  decrees  which  the  Formula 
of  Concord  combines  under  the  name  of  predestination  or  elec- 
tion of  grace.  If,  therefore,  election  as  it  is  completed  is  looked 
upon  as  having  taken  place  without  regard  to  the  conduct  of 
the  called,  the  same  would,  of  necessity,  be  true  of  each  link 
of  the  chain,  also  of  the  decree  of  perseverance  and  glorification. 
But  if  it  is  not  true  of  this  one  decree  —  if  at  least  this  one 
decree  has  not  been  formed  without  certain  regard  being  had 
to  the  personal  conduct  of  the  regenerate  —  it  is  false  doctrine 
and  nonsense,  to  maintain  of  election  as  a  whole  that  it  has  taken 
place  without  regard  to  the  free  personal  conduct  of  the  called. 

And  Missouri  may  wriggle  and  twist  itself  as  long  and  as 
much  as  it  pleases,  in  order  to  wrench  away  from  this  Si  modo 
("if  only"),  like  a  pike  from  the  line  of  the  angler,  it  can  not 
and  shall  not  tear  itself  loose.  It  may  use  all  sorts  of  sophistry 
and  arbitrary  interpretation  in  order  to  free  itself  from  the  fine 
but  strong  point  of  this  "Si  modo,"  it  will  all  be  of  no  avail. 


Is  the  Doctrme  that  God  has  Elected  Men,  Etc.         567 

The  Formula  of  Concord  teaches  and  recognizes  at  least  the 
last  link  of  the  chain  of  election  as  involving-  a  condition  and 
as  pertaining  to  the  personal  conduct  of  the  regenerate.  This 
at  once  decides  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  does  not  teach  and 
confess  of  election  as  a  whole  that  it  is  unconditional,  that  means 
without  consideration  at  any  point  of  the  conduct  of  the  person 
called.  For  election  as  a  whole  includes  also  the  last  link.  If 
this  involves  a  condition,  election  as  a  whole  is  conditional  on 
account  of  this  one  link.  The  weakness  (condition)  of  the  last 
link,   conditions  the  weakness  (condition)   of  the  whole  chain. 

It  may  be  that  we  are  not  able  to  explain  this  matter  as 
clearly  to  others  as  it  is  to  ourselves.  But  it  is  certain  that 
the  Formula  of  Concord  does  not  teach,  as  regards  conversion 
and  perseverance,  that  God  has  firmly  and  finally  decreed  the 
actual  subjective  experience  of  these  blessings  without  reference 
to  the  free  personal  conduct  of  the  called  toward  the  same,  which 
is  exhibited  in  their  use  of  the  means  of  grace.  And  in  this  the 
Formula  of  Concord  stands  as  sharply  opposed  to  the  doctrine 
of  Missouri  as  any  two  doctrines  or  principles  can  stand  in 
•opposition  to  each  other.  If,  therefore,  Missouri  appeals  in 
defense  of  its  theory  to  the  Confession,  there  can  only  be  one 
result,  namely  gross  abuse. 

Quod  erat  demonstrandum. 


A  TESTIMONY 


AGAINST    THE 


False  Doctrine  of  Predestination 


RECENTLY  INTRODUCED  BY  THE 


MISSOURI  SYNOD: 


Basis  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  Lutheran  Confession, 

by  Several  Former  Members  of  the 

Missouri  Synod. 


TRANSLATED   FROM   THE  GERMAN, 
THE   INTRODUCTIONS   AND  THE   FIRST   FOUR   THESES 


Rev.  R.  C.  H.  Lenski,  A.  M. 


THE   FIFTH   THESIS   AND   THE  APPENDIX 
BY 


REV.W.  E.TRESSEL. 


And  for  this  cause  God  shall  send  them  strong  delusion, 
that  they  should  believe  a  He  :  that  they  all  might  be  damned 
who  believe  not  the  truth,  but  had  pleasure  in  unrighteous- 
ness. 

But  we  are  bound  to  give  thanks  always  to  God  for  you, 
brethren  beloved  of  the  Lord,  because  God  hath  from  the 
beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation  through  sanctification  of 
the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth. 

2  Thess.  2,  11-13. 


A  TESTIMONY 


AGAINST  THE  FALSE  DOCTRINE  OF  PREDESTINATION  RE- 
CENTLY INTRODUCED  BY  THE  MISSOURI  SYNOD. 


GENERAL   INTRODUCTION. 

On  the  11th  of  October,  1881,  the  Revs.  H.  Ernst,  J.  H. 
Doermann,  H.  P.  Duborg,  C.  H.  Rohe,  P.  H.  Holtermann,  and 
A.  H.  Wetzel,  who,  together  with  others,  had  left  the  Missouri 
Synod  on  account  of  its  false  doctrine  of  predestination,  issued  a 
"call",  "inviting  all  pastors  and  teachers  who  had  left  the  Missouri 
Synod  on  account  of  its  new  false  doctrine,  and  who  were  located 
in  northwestern  Indiana,  in  Wisconsin,  in  Illinois,  or  south  or 
west  thereof,  to  assemble  on  the  16th  of  November,  1881,  in  the 
<:ongregation  of  Rev.  H.  P.  Duborg  a;t  Blue  Island,  Ills.,  for  the 
purpose  of  discussing  and  forming  an  organization  (which,  as 
was  presumed,  would  unite  with  the  Ohio  Synod  as  a  separate 
district).  All  congregations  holding  the  same  faith  with  us,  in 
a  situation  similar  to  our  own,  and  lying  within  the  territory 
described,  are  likevvfise  requested  and  invited  to  send  accredited 
representatives  to  this  meeting." 

As  a  result  of  this  call  the  following  persons  assembled:  — 

PASTORS. 

H.  A.  Allwardt  of  Lebanon,  Dodge  Co.,  Wis. 

J.  H.  Doermann  of  Yorkville,  Kendall  Co.,  Ills. 

H.  P.  Duborg  of  Blue  Island,  Cook  Co.,  Ills. 

H.  Eisenbach  of  New  Douglas,  Madison  Co.,  Ills. 

H.  Ernst  of  Michigan  City,  Ind. 

H.  Fisher  of  Maple  Works,  Clark  Co.,  Wis. 

P.  H.  Holtermann  of  Mount  Olive.  Macoupin  Co.,  Wis. 

G.  Mochel  of  Shelby ville.  Ills. 

C.  F.  Seitz  of  Columbia  City,  Ind. 

A.  H.  Wetzel. 

TEACHERS. 

J.  H.  Meyer  of  Blue  Island,  Cook  Co.,  Ills. 
Baumann  of  Michigan  City,  Ind. 

(571) 


572  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

DELEGATES   OF   CONGREGATIONS. 

Jno.  C.  Niemann  and 

H.  Prange  from  the  congregation  at  Mount  Olive,  Ills. 

H.  Baier  from  the  congregation  at  Yorkville,  Ills. 

H.  W.  Rinker  from  a  small  congregation  which  had  sepa- 
rated from  the  Missouri  congregation  in  Hebron. 

The  following  were  present  as  guests:  Students  of  theology 
G.  W.  Nicol,  F.  H.  Patzer,  vicars  of  Rev.  Duborg,  and  the  Messrs. 
Gottfr.  Kircher,  H.  A.  Reiner,  Stofifel,  R.  Boe,  and  Rohe.  Rev. 
J.  M.  Johannes  of  Ephraim,  Door  Co.,  Wis.,  sent  in  a  written 
request  for  membership  for  himself  and  for  his  congregation. 

Besides  this  a  number  of  letters  from  pastors  and  laymen 
were  sent  in,  heartily  favoring  the  purpose  of  the  meeting.  Revs. 
Rohe  and  Lange  in  Michigan  and  P.  F,  Eirich  in  Hoboken,  N.  J., 
who  had  also  left  the  Missouri  Synod  or  had  been  expelled,  being 
outside  of  the  territory  described,  did  not  attend  the  meeting. 

The  Conference  was  opened  by  Rev.  Duborg  on  the  16th  of 
November,  at  1:30  P.  M.,  by  the  singing  of  hymn  136  and  the 
reading  of  the  first  section  of  the  119th  Psalm.  Rev.  Doermann 
was  then  chosen  permanent  chairman  of  the  meeting.  Rev.  Wetzel 
secretary,  and  Rev.  Mochel  chaplain. 

It  was  resolved  that  the  Conference  continue  its  sessions,  if 
necessary,  until  Tuesday  evening,  and  that  the  sessions  be  held 
from  8:30  till  11:30  A.  M.,  and  from  2  till  5  P.  M. 

The  chairman  hereupon  made  a  brief  address.  He  stated, 
that  the  faith  of  the  heart  will  certainly  find  it  necessary  to  show 
itself  in  a  confession  of  the  lips,  according  to  the  word  of  David: 
I  beHeve,  therefore  I  speak;  and  according  to  Christ:  Whosoever 
shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  before  my  Father 
in  heaven;  and  according  to  Paul:  With  the  heart  man  believeth 
unto  righteousness,  and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto 
salvation.  Moreover,  it  is  certain  that  we  cannot  define  our  posi- 
tion in  the  present  condition  of  affairs  too  often  or  too  precisely, 
since  our  opponents  use  every  means  to  make  it  appear  as  though 
we  had  turned  from  the  Word  of  God  and  from  the  Confession. 
Nevertheless,  at  present  it  seems  advisable  to  postpone  our  doc- 
trinal discussion  until  the  formation  of  a  synodical  organization, 
according  to  the  call  that  was  sent  out,  has  been  discussed.  Nearly 
all  present  were  agreed  to  this  proposition.  Several  congrega- 
tions had  sent  representatives  for  this  very  purpose,  and  a  number 


General  hitroduction.  573 

of  letters  encouraged  the  project  most  heartily.  But  over  against 
this  it  was  stated,  that  the  time  between  the  issuing  of  the  call  and 
the  meeting  of  the  Conference  was  too  short  to  admit  of  bringing 
the  matter  before  the  congregations  in  the  proper  manner.  Then 
too,  after  all  the  calumniations  and  misrepresentations  of  our  doc- 
trine at  the  hands  of  our  opponents,  it  certainly  behooves  us  to 
state  clearly  and  precisely  what  we  teach  concerning  God's  eternal 
election,  and  what  we  reject  in  the  doctrine  of  our  opponents,  so 
that  our  fellow  Christians  can  themselves  know  whether  we  or 
our  opponents  have  forsaken  the  pure  doctrine.  The  discussion 
of  a  synodical  constitution  would  require  so  much  time,  that  we 
would  hardly  be  able  to  begin  the  discussion  of  doctrine.  It  was 
thereupon  unanimously  resolved:  — 

That  we  postpone  the  definite  organization  of  a  synod  until 
the  spring  of  1882,  so  that  the  entire  time  of  the  present  meeting 
may  be  devoted  to  doctrinal  discussion. 

All  present  were  also  agreed  that  the  organization  to  be 
formed  should  properly  unite  with  the  Ohio  Synod,  since  this 
Synod  had  been  in  fellowship  with  the  Missouri  Synod  for  years, 
and  is  thus  one  Vv^ith  us  in  all  other  doctrines,  and  since  this  Synod 
has  now  also  remained  true  to  the  Lutheran  Confession  in  the 
doctrine  of  predestination,  while  Missouri  has  become  untrue  to 
the  Confession. 

The  entire  time  of  the  Conference  was  thus  devoted  to  doc- 
trinal discussion,  from  Thursday  morning  until  Tuesday  noon, 
nine  sessions  in  all.  Those  present  found  themselves  in  perfect 
agreement  with  each  other.  During  the  course  of  the  discussion 
the  Revs.  Holtermann  and  Mochel  were  chosen  as  assistant  secre- 
taries, and  the  final  edning  of  the  minutes  was  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  Revs.  Ernst  and  Allwardt,  who  also  furnished  the  theses  for 
the  discussion.  Rev.  Allwardt  was  requested  to  add  to  the  min- 
utes, in  the  form  of  an  appendix,  a  sketch  of  the  former  doctrine 
of  Missouri  on  predestination  and  a  brief  history  of  the  present 
controversy. 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  DOCTRINAL  DISCUSSION. 

After  Prof.  Schmidt,  of  Madison,  Wis.,  and  Rev.  Allwardt 
had  raised  objections  in  private  to  Dr.  Walther  against  the  Report 
of  the  Western  District  of  the  Missouri  Synod  for  the  year  1877, 
the  latter  did  not,  at  the  meeting  of  the  same  District  in  1879,  con- 


574  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

fine  himself  to  a  defense  of  the  controverted  propositions,  but 
attempted  in  every  possible  way  to  brand  the  contrary  proposi- 
tions as  heretical;  this  the  Report  of  '79  shows  only  too  fully. 
When  for  this  reason  a  public  defense  of  the  pure  doctrine  became- 
necessary,  and  open  controversy  ensued,  those  of  St.  Louis  con- 
tinued this  procedure.  On  the  one  hand,  they  declared  that  we 
did  not  believe  at  all  in  an  eternal  election,  and  on  the  other  hand^ 
they  asserted  especially  that  onr  doctrine  concerning  conversion 
was  synergistic  and  Pelagian,  i.  e.  that  we  ascribe  co-operation  to 
man  in  conversion.  This  is  the  old  trick;  "Catch  the  thief!"  cries 
vociferously  the  thief  himself.  These  accusations  they  have 
repeated  and  re-repeated  with  a  zeal  and  an  emphasis  worthy  of 
a  better  cause ;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  so  far  their  success  has 
been  due  to  the  employment  of  such  tactics.  For  every  Lutheran 
believes  firmly  that  we  cannot  by  our  own  reason  or  strength 
believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord,  or  come  to  Him,  and  that  faith 
is  the  gracious  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  who  denies  this  is 
indeed  no  Lutheran ;  and  our  opponents  could  have  employed  no 
more  efficient  means  for  calumniating  our  controversy  against 
them,  and  for  withdrawing  attention  from  their  own  errors,  thaa 
this  terrible  accusation.  It  was  not  very  difficult  for  them  to 
secure  acceptance  of  these  accusations  especially  in  their  own 
synod.  The  respect  accorded  Dr.  Walther  was  in  itself  of  great 
weight.  Few  people  read  what  we  ourselves  wrote,  and  the  mis- 
representations of  our  doctrines  at  the  hands  of  our  St.  Louis- 
opponents  were  such  as  in  themselves  to  prevent  any  calm  and^ 
unprejudiced  investigation. 

Our  present  intention  is  not  the  defense  of  our  good  name 
over  against  the  calumniations  of  Missouri.  We  cannot  deny 
indeed,  that  it  pains  us  to  have  so  many  of  our  former  brethren 
and  fathers  in  Christ  look  upon  us  now  as  heretics,  synergists. 
Pelagians,  arch-Pelagians,  and  even  as  pagans  and  Tu'ks.  Yet 
we  have  the  testimony  of  a  good  conscience.  And  we  see  also 
to  what  fallacies  they  must  resort  to  give  any  support  to  their  accu- 
sations, and  that  they  dare  not  present  to  their  readers  passages 
of  any  length  from  our  writings  from  which  a  judgment  migh  be 
formed.  From  conversations  with  many  Missouri  pastors  siuce 
the  inception  of  the  controversy  we  know  that  it  was  almost 
impossible  for  them  to  swallow  the  new  doctrinal  propositions, 
and  they  dare  not  even  to  this  day  present  them  openly  and  hon- 
estly to  their  congregations.     These  are  indeed  miserable  condi- 


Introduction  to  the  Doctri?ial  Discussion.  575 

tions,  and  we  can  only  thank  God  for  having  preserved  us  and 
strengthened  our  hearts  to  fight  against  the  error.  The  asper- 
sions cast  upon  us  we  can  bear  readily,  knowing  that  a  day  of  just 
judgment  is  drawing  nigh. 

Our  purpose  is  simply  to  raise  our  united  voices  in  warning: 
Beware,  O  Lutheran  Church  of  America,  beware!  Missouri,  so 
highly  favored  and  blessed  —  Missouri  with  Dr.  Walther  at  its 
head  —  has  fallen  into  great  error,  into  an  error  which  afifects  the 
very  foundation  of  our  salvation  —  God's  eternal  love  for  sinners. 
Missouri  indeed  comes  with  an  indignant  denial.  And,  in  fact, 
it  does  not  explicitly  deny  that  God  has  loved  all  men,  that  the 
Son  of  God  has  redeemed  all,  and  that  God  in  a  certain  sense 
would  have  all  men  to  be  saved.  Missouri  confesses  all  this,  and 
often  clothes  it  in  beautiful  words,  finer  than  we  are  able  to  pro- 
duce. And  yet  by  the  side  of  this  its  teaching  Mis.souri  adheres  to  a 
doctrine  of  predestination  which  in  very  fact  annuls  the  universal 
love  of  God.  Missouri  itself  confesses  that  apparently  the  doc- 
trine of  predestination  contradicts  the  doctrine  of  God's  universal 
will  of  grace;  it  tells  us  that  the  connection  between  these  two  doc- 
trines is  a  mystery;  and  under  cover  of  this  "mystery"  it  seeks 
to  establish  this  doctrine  in  the  Church.  Beware,  O  Lutheran 
Church!  This  "apparent"  contradiction  is  a  real  contradiction, 
a  contradiction  of  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures, 
namely  that  God  had  such  compassion  upon  all  men  as  to  render 
the  salvation  of  all  in  reality  possible.  When  our  opponents 
speak  of  the  universal  will  of  grace,  they  still  for  the  most  part 
speak  correctly;  but  when  they  speak  of  predestination,  their 
words  are  false.  Paul  tells  us  that  a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the 
whole  lump.  But  our  opponents  have  mixed  the  truth  of  the 
Scriptures  not  with  "a  little",  but  with  a  good-sized  lump  of  error. 

Would  to  God  that  they  might  learn  to  see  and  forsake  their 
error!  But  the  prospects  for  such  a  course  on  their  part  are  not 
very  encouraging.     We  commend  all  to  God! 


THE  BLUE  ISLAND  THESES. 


L     God  has  irrevocably  elected  unto  salvation  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world  all  those  who  are  saved  in  time. 

IL  Election  is  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  is  therefore  no 
more  "a  mystery"  than  any  other  article  of  faith. 

IIL     Election  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel  and  not  in  the  law. 

IV.     The  Gospel  directs  us  to  Christ  —  God  has  elected  in  Christ, 

V.  Christ's  merit  is  considered  in  election  not  merely  as  ob- 
tained for  us,  but  also  as  apprehended  by  us  —  God  has 
elected  in  view  of  faith. 


THESIS  I. 

God  has  irrevocably  elected  unto  salvation  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world  all  those  who  are  saved  i7i  titne. 

There  is  agreement  between  our  opponents  and  ourselves  on 
this  thesis;  this  is  what  they  teach,  and  what  we  teach.  And  it  is 
easy  to  estabHsh  this  thesis  from  the  Scriptures  and  from  the  Con- 
fession of  our  Church. 

The  Lord  declares,  Matth.  20,  16,  and  22,  14:  "For  many  are 
called,  but  few  are  chosen".  Here  a  choice  is  explicitly  predi- 
cated, and  this  choice  does  not  include  all  men,  not  even  all  men 
who  are  called,  i.  e.  who  hear  God's  Word.  It  cannot  include 
those  who  do  not  even  hear  God's  Word.  Eph.  1,  4,  we  read: 
"According  as  He  hath  chosen  us  in  Him  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world."  In  2  Thess.  2,  12,  Paul  declares:  "That  they  all 
might  be  damned  who  believed  not  the  truth,  but  had  pleasure  in 
unrighteousness."  In  contrast  to  these  words  he  says  concerning 
believing  Christians:  "But  we  are  bound  to  give  thanks  always  to 
God  for  you,  brethren  beloved  of  the  Lord,  because  God  hath 
from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation  through  sanctification 
of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth."  In  fact,  these  two  passages 
contain  the  whole  doctrine  of  predestination  in  all  clearness,  so 
that  among  those  who  abide  by  the  Word  in  simplicity  there  can 
be  no  dispute  regarding  it.  All  those  who  do  not  believe  the 
truth  (when  it  is  preached  to  them,  for  by  nature  no  man  believes 
the  truth,  that  is  the  gospel)  are  damned,  and  are  therefore  not 
elected.  And  in  accordance  with  this  statement  the  apostle  says 
of  the  elect,  they  are  chosen  in  belief  of  the  truth.  God  indeed 
desires  to  save  all  men,  yet  never  without  belief  of  the  truth ;  with- 
out faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.  Accordingly,  He  has 
elected  no  man  without  faith,  but  only  in  faith.  The  whole  differ- 
ence in  eternal  election  turns  on  belief  and  unbelief,  and  thus  the 
doctrine  of  election  agrees  perfectly  with  the  universal  preaching 
of  the  gospel:  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved, 
but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.  And  when  the  ques- 
tion is  raised,  how  God  could  take  the  faith  or  unbelief  of  indi- 
vidual men  into  consideration  when  men  were  not  yet  in  exist- 
ence, David  furnishes  the  answer  in  Ps.  139,  16 :   "Thine  eyes  did 

(577) 


578  A  Testhnony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

see  my  substance,  yet  being  imperfect;  and  in  thy  book  all  my 
members  were  written  which  in  continuance  were  fashioned,  when 
as  yet  there  was  none  of  them."  If  God  saw  us  all  when  as  yet 
we  were  not,  He  certainly  also  saw  which  of  us  would  believe  in 
Christ  His  Son  through  His  grace,  and  which  wovild  continue  in 
unbelief  in  spite  of  that  grace.  God  chose  men  who  live  now, 
and  rejected  others  who  live  now.  For  His  divine  omniscience 
all  things  are  neither  past  nor  future,  but  forever  present.  Hence 
Peter  declares  that  those  who  believe  were  chosen  according  to 
the  foreknowledge  of  God  (1,  2),  so  that  God  had  all  men  as  they 
are  now  before  His  eyes;  and  as  He  has  chosen  no  one  without 
faith,  so  He  rejected  no  one  who  does  not  wilfully  remain  in  unbe- 
lief. Some  are  damned  because  they  do  not  believe  the  truth, 
the  others  are  chosen  in  belief  of  the  truth. 

But  this  is  precisely  what  Missouri  does  not  want.  Missouri 
claims  that  God  did  not  consider  faith  in  His  eternal  election,  and 
yet  He  divided  men;  that  He  saw  all  men,  as  we  are  born,  in  the 
same  blindness  and  misery,  and  that  then  He  chose  a  certain  num- 
ber and  resolved  to  give  them  faith  and  keep  them  therein.  Hence 
they  pervert  the  clear  declaration  of  Paul,  saying:  God  has  chosen 
some  unto  faith,  instead  of  in  faith.  God  then  from  the  very  start 
passed  by  the  majority  of  mankind.  This  is  the  real  point  at  issue 
in  the  present  controversy.  But  Missouri  drags  in  instead  of  this 
a  dispute  concerning  conversion. 

But  this  is  anticipating.  The  chief  point  in  the  first  thesis 
is  this,  that  already  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  God  has 
chosen  those  who  are  actually  saved;  and  this  is  clearly  estab- 
lished by  the  passage :  God  hath  chosen  you  from  the  beginning 
unto  salvation.  Those,  however,  who  do  not  believe  the  truth 
are  damned,  and  therefore  are  not  chosen  unto  salvation.  Rom. 
8,  29,  reads:  "Whom  He  did  foreknow,  He  also  did  predestinate 
to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son."  The  word  in  this 
passage  is  not  "chosen",  but  "predestinated"  that  they  should  be 
conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son,  i.  e.  suffer  here  with  Christ 
and  be  lifted  up  to  glory  beyond.  Yet  God  did  not  predestinate 
all  men  unto  glory,  but  only  those  "whom  He  did  foreknow",  that 
is  a  certain  number,  a  select  number.  The  word  "predestinate" 
shows  that  the  election  is  immutable;  for  it  does  not  designate 
the  gracious  will  of  God  which  desires  to  bring  all  men  unto  faith 
and  salvation,  but  a  fixed  decree  concerning  those  who  believe; 
and  since  the  word  is  "fore-known",  and  in  the  original  also  "pre- 


Thesis  I.  579 

destinate"  (fore-ordain),  the  eternity  of  this  foreknowledge  and 
predestination  is  expressed. 

Our  Confession  contains  the  same  unmistakable  utterances 
■concerning  God's  eternal  election.  In  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
Art.  XI,  §  5,  we  read:  "But  the  eternal  election  of  God,  or  pre- 
destination, i.  e.  God's  appointment  to  salvation,  pertains  not  at 
the  same  time  to  the  godly  and  the  wicked,  but  only  to  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  who  were  elected  and  appointed  to  eternal  life 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  as  Paul  says  (Eph.  1, 
4-5):  'He  hath  chosen  us  in  Him,  having  predestinated  us  unto 
the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ.'"  In  §  23  we  read: 
"And  that  in  His  counsel,  purpose,  and  ordination  He  prepared 
salvation  not  only  in  general,  but  in  grace  considered  and  chose 
to  salvation  each  and  every  person  of  the  elect,  who  shall  be  saved 
through  Christ,  and  ordained  that  in  the  way  just  mentioned  He 
would  by  His  grace,  gifts,  and  efficacy  bring  them  thereto,  and 
aid,  promote,  strengthen,  and  preserve  them." 

These  and  other  passages  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  Con- 
fession establish  our  thesis  beyond  a  doubt.  And  as  there  is  no 
dispute  between  us  and  our  opponents  on  this  score  we  might  at 
once  proceed  to  the  second  thesis.  But  we  find  it  necessary  to 
state  here  that  they  have  again  and  again  accused  us  as  though 
we  denied  God's  eternal  election,  and  thus  flagrantly  rejected  the 
above  testimonies  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession.  The 
false  accusation,  that  we  teach,  man  is  able  to  do  something  on 
his  part  for  his  conversion,  together  with  the  other  equally  false, 
that  we  deny  predestination  altogether,  has  been  the  chief  means 
of  deceiving  their  readers  in  regard  to  our  doctrine.  This  chap- 
ter in  the  controversy  is  lamentable  indeed;  it  is  by  no  means  a 
pleasant  task  for  us  to  expose  such  proceedings,  nor  complimen- 
tary to  ourselves  that  people  with  whom  we  have  hitherto  been 
intimately  connected  care  so  little  for  truth  and  honesty.  But 
since  they  make  use  of  such  calumniations  and  open  falsehoods 
to  undermine  our  testimony  for  the  truth,  thus  drawing  the  atten- 
tion of  the  church  away  from  their  false  teaching,  we  find  our- 
selves compelled  by  the  truth  which  is  at  stake  to  make  mention 
of  these  disagreeable  things. 

Even  before  the  Conference  in  Chicago  (October,  1880)  they 
accused  us  of  believing  in  no  eternal  election  at  all.  What  we 
designated  as  election  they  claimed  to  be  nothing  but  God's  fore- 
knowledge— this  was  one  of  their  assertions;  another  was,  that 


580  A  Testimojiy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

we  took  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  to  be  election;  or  that  we 
taught  two  elections,  one  universal,  and  one  particular;  and  finally,, 
that  in  reality  we  taught  only  one  election  of  all  men.  Here  are 
four  tunes  to  one  song.  Let  us  look  at  the  last  one.  It  is  evi- 
dent that,  if  we  would  teach  an  election  of  all  men,  we  would 
indeed  deny  election  proper;  for  where  all  are  taken  there  can 
be  no  election.  To  demonstrate  this  is,  accordingly,  very  easy 
work  for  our  opponents.  The  only  question  is,  where  have  we 
made  the  statement  that  all  men  are  elected?  We  have  never 
said  this,  nor  have  we  ever  believed  it.  Yet  we  have  asserted, 
and  do  still  assert,  and  will  demonstrate  thoroughly  in  the  follow- 
ing pages  that  our  F.  C.  uses  the  word  election  in  a  wider  sense 
than  the  later  teachers  of  our  Church. 

Our  opponents  have  fastened  themselves  upon  this  expres- 
sion, "in  the  wider  sense",  claiming  that  we  thereby  mean  an 
election  of  all  men,  and  thus  in  reality  no  election  properly  so- 
called  at  all.  The  case  is  this:  Our  F.  C.  enumerates  eight  eter- 
nal decrees  of  God,  and  only  in  the  last  of  these  and  in  a  further 
concluding  sentence  is  any  mention  made  of  the  selection  of  per- 
sons. And  yet  the  Confession  states  before  and  after  that  all 
this  must  be  taken  together  when  we  speak  or  think  of  election. 
It  is  evident,  too,  that  election  cannot  be  properly  understood  or 
conceived  unless  we  think  and  speak  of  it  in  connection  with 
the  universal  redemption,  the  call  through  the  Gospel,  conversion, 
justification,  etc.  All  men  are  sinners;  how  could  a  holy  God 
predestinate  them  unto  salvation?  Answer:  He  had  already 
determined  to  redeem  them  through  Christ.  Even  a  child  can 
understand  that  redemption  belongs  to  election.  But  why  did 
not  God  predestinate  all  men  unto  salvation,  why  did  He  choose 
only  a  few?  Did  not  Christ  redeem  them  all?  To  be  sure.  He  re- 
deemed them  all.  But  according  to  God's  order  the  individual 
can  become  a  partaker  of  this  redemption  only  through  faith. 
Our  Confession  declares:  God  in  His  eternal -divine  counsel 
determined  that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowl- 
edge His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  Him.  Just  as  little 
now  as  God  gives  salvation  in  time  to  an  unbeliever,  so  little  has 
He  elected  unbelievers  in  eternity  unto  salvation.  But  no  man 
can  beUeve  in  Jesus  Christ  or  come  to  Him  by  his  own  reason 
or  strength;  God  must  give  us  faith,  otherwise  we  would  remain 
forever  in  unbelief  and  condemnation.  Hence,  it  is  evident,  that 
the  decree  of  redemption  is  not  sufficient  to  constitute  election, 


Thesis  I.  581 

it  requires  in  addition  all  the  provisions  of  God  relative  to  our 
conversion,  justification,  and  preservation  in  faith.  And  this 
indeed  is  the  contents  of  all  the  decrees,  from  the  second  to  the 
seventh,  enumerated  in  the  Confession.  All  these  decrees  there- 
fore belong  to  election,  i.  e.  all  this  God  Himself  had  to  ordain, 
if  He  desired  to  receive  sinners  unto  eternal  life.  The  word 
■"election"  indeed,  taken  literally,  signifies  a  separation  or  divis- 
ion; but  we  are  here  considering  the  election  of  sinners  unto  sal- 
vation ;  and  these  must  be  sinners  redeemed  and  justified  through 
faith. 

There  is,  however,  another  side  to  the  necessity  of  these 
decrees  for  the  proper  understanding  of  the  doctrine  of  election, 
namely  in  answering  the  question  already  touched  upon,  why 
God  did  not  predestinate  all  men  unto  salvation?  Without  faith, 
as  has  been  stated,  God  would  save  no  one.  On  the  other  hand, 
He  excludes  no  one  from  salvation  who  dies  in  faith.  Faith  is 
of  the  greatest  importance ;  and  the  inquiry,  why  God  did  not  pre- 
destinate all  men  unto  salvation,  leads  of  necessity  to  the  further 
question,  why  all  men  do  not  believe,  and  why  all  do  not  per- 
severe in  faith  who  believe  for  a  time?  God  alone  can  give  and 
preserve  faith.     Is  it  His  fault  then  that  all  do  not  believe? 

Tlie  answer  is  found  in  the  decrees  treating  of  the  bestowal 
and  preservation  of  faith,  namely  the  second,  the  third,  and  the 
seventh.  Their  language  is  clearly  such  as  shows  that  God  has 
excluded  no  one  from  the  gracious  operations  of  His  Holy  Spirit, 
and  that  on  the  other  hand  He  also  compels  no  one  with  irre- 
sistible power  to  believe  or  to  persevere.  The  fact,  that  all  do 
not  believe,  is  not  due  to  a  lack  of  divine  grace;  and  this  thought 
necessarily  belongs  to  the  correct  conception  of  election.  It  is 
true  that  God  chose  only  a  "few";  but  we  must  not  forget  that  the 
cause  of  this  is  not  a  twofold  and  dissimilar  will  on  God's  part. 
Our  Confession  also,  as  we  shall  see,  brings  this  out  in  a  num- 
ber of  places,  and  with  great  emphasis.  But  these  eight  decrees 
already  teach  as  much,  and  therefore  belong  necessarily  to  the 
idea  of  election. 

This  is  what  we  mean  when  we  say  that  the  F.  C.  employs 
the  word  election  in  a  "wider  sense";  we  do  not  mean  that  the 
Confession  teaches  an  election  of  all  men;  "in  the  wider  sense", 
not  so  as  to  include  more  men,  but  so  as  to  include  more  divine 
decrees  than  the  mere  separation  of  persons.  For  although  the 
decree  of  redemption  and  vocation  pertain  to  all  men,  the  eighth 


582  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrijie,  Etc. 

decree  does  not  pertain  to  all.  Redemption  and  vocation  alone 
do  not  constitute  election  or  predestination  unto  salvation.  The 
latter  embraces  all  that  precedes  it.  An  elect  person  is  a  sinner 
redeemed,  called  by  the  Gospel,  justified  in  faith.  For  this  reason 
the  eighth  decree,  which  treats  properly  of  the  final  predestina- 
tion to  salvation,  declares,  "that  those  whom  He  has  elected,. 
called,  and  justified  He  would  eternally  save."  But  if  we  turn 
it  about,  redemption  and  vocation  do  not  include  the  selection 
of  persons  for  salvation;  there  are  many  redeemed  and  called 
who  are  not  chosen.  We  can  therefore  speak  of  redemption  and 
of  the  call  withovit  speaking  of  election;  on  the  other  hand,  we 
cannot  speak  of  election  without  speaking  of  redemption  and  of 
the  call,  or  without  at  least  mentally  presupposing  them. 

Our  fathers  frequently  compare  this  entire  series  of  eternal 
decrees  to  a  golden  chain.  The  anchorage  of  this  chain  is  God's- 
eternal  grace;  the  first  link  of  the  chain  is  the  gracious  decree  of 
redemption ;  the  second  link  the  calling  through  the  Gospel  unto 
.the  blessings  of  redemption;  the  third  the  efficacious  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  conversion  through  the  Gospel;  the  fourth 
the  justification  of  the  converted;  the  fifth  the  renewing  of  the 
justified,  so  that  faith  and  a  good  conscience  may  abide  in  them; 
the  sixth  the  support  in  all  afifliction  and  persecution,  that  we  may 
not  despair  of  the  goodness  of  God;  the  seventh  the  preservation 
proper  in  faith;  the  eighth  finally  the  glorification  of  those  in 
eternal  life  who  have  been  preserved  in  faith.  This  is  truly  the- 
contents  of  the  eight  decrees  presented  by  the  Confession.  All 
can  see  that  one  link  always  joins  the  other,  so  that  we  cannot 
speak  of  a  single  one  without  at  least  referring  to  its  connection 
with  the  one  preceding.  We  cannot  speak  of  the  call  without 
mentioning  redemption,  or  at  least  presupposing  it  as  well  known. . 
The  last  link  in  the  golden  chain,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the  predesti- 
nation of  certain  persons  unto  salvation.  And  accordingly,  we 
cannot  speak  correctly  of  this  link  without  describing  all  the 
rest  fully,  or  at  least  presupposing  them  all.  If  the  last  link  is 
removed  from  the  chain,  it  indeed  remains  an  iron  or  a  golden 
ring,  but  it  is  no  longer  a  link  in  the  chain.  In  the  same  way, 
if  we  attempt  to  speak  of  election  or  predestination  unto  salva- 
tion, without  in  some  way  showing  up  its  connection  with  the 
other  provisions  of  God,  the  word  "election"  would  indeed 
retain  its  literal  signification,  but  its  biblical  meaning  would  be- 


Thesis  I.  583 

lost;  for  the  Bible  knows  nothing  of  an  election  unto  salvation 
except  on  the  basis  of  Christ's  merit  and  in  belief  of  the  truth. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  our  Confession  declares  that,  when 
we  wish  to  speak  correctly  and  profitably  concerning  election, 
we  must  comprise  with  it  and  never  omit  or  exclude  the  entire 
doctrine  concerning  the  purpose,  counsel,  will,  and  ordination 
of  God  pertaining  to  our  redemption,  call,  rigliteousness,  and  sal- 
vation (§§  24  and  14).  For  election  contains  this,  and  all  this 
belongs  thereto  (§  9). 

The  purpose  of  our  Confession  in  this,  namely  the  consid- 
eration of  election  in  its  connection  with  the  universal  counsel  of 
grace  and  in  the  light  of  this  counsel,  can  be  secured  in  a  two- 
fold way.  One  is,  that  all  the  separate  decrees  of  the  counsel  of 
grace  be  set  forth  part  by  part,  with  the  decree  of  the  glorifica- 
tion oi  the  elect  at  the  end ;  the  other  is,  that  we  treat  of  the  last 
decree  by  itself,  but  not  without  carefully  showing  its  connec- 
tion with  the  foregoing  decree.  A  single  link  in  a  chain  may  be 
examined  separately,  as  long  as  its  connection  with  the  one  imme- 
diately preceding  is  kept  in  view.  If  this  is  omitted,  it  is  no 
longer  looked  upon  as  a  link  of  the  chain,  but  only  as  a  golden 
ring;  the  real  idea  and  intention  of  the  artist  is  altogether  over- 
looked. As  far  as  the  one  link  possesses  peculiarities  of  its  own, 
which  we  desire  to  examine  especially,  it  is  possible  to  view  it 
separately  only  bearing  in  mind  its  junction  with  the  foregoing. 
And  this  is  the  difference  between  the  F.  C.  and  the  later  teach- 
ers of  our  Church,  between  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  wider  and 
in  the  narrower  sense. 

The  F.  C.  presents  the  entire  chain;  the  dogmaticians  only 
the  last  link  in  its  connection  with  the  foregoing,  they  say  that 
God  has  chosen  and  predestinated  all  those  unto  salvation  who 
believe  perseveringly  in  Christ.  They  say  nothing  about  the 
origin  and  preservation  of  faith  in  their  definition  of  election; 
all  this  they  presuppose.  Nevertheless,  persevering  faith  remains 
the  link  between  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  and  the  election 
of  persons.  It  is  easy  to  see,  that  thus  nothing  has  been  changed 
in  the  decree  itself  or  in  its  relation  to  the  rest,  and  that  our  dog- 
maticians have  no  doctrine  of  election  different  from  that  of  the 
Confession;  yet  they  use  the  word  "election"  in  a  narrower  sense, 
to  describe  only  election  proper,  while  the  F.  C.  includes  the  other 
provisions  which  precede  this  election. 


584  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

This  difference  in  the  mode  of  setting  forth  one  and  th^  same 
thing  is  what  we  mean  when  we  speak  of  a  wider  and  of  a  nar- 
rower sense  of  the  word  "election."  We  by  no  means  intend  to 
say  that  in  the  "wider  sense"  all  men,  including  those  who  die 
in  unbelief,  are  elected. 

Our  opponents,  however,  found  an  excellent  opportunity  in 
this  for  calumniating  us;  for  it  is  evident  that  unlearned  people, 
who  do  not  know  that  these  two  modes  of  doctrine  have  been 
customary  in  our  Church,  can  easily  be  persuaded  that  election 
"in  the  wider  sense"  must  necessarily  mean  "an  election  of  all 
men."  Those  of  St.  Louis  could  well  know  that  such  was  not  our 
meaning,  for  we  were  not  the  ones  to  discover  this  distinction, 
a  large  number  of  our  theologians  having  always  employed  it, 
and  among  them  also  Baier  in  his  Compend  of  Dogmatics,  ac- 
cording to  which  Dr.  Walther  has  been  instructing  his  students 
for  25  years.  Dr.  Walther  assuredly  knows  that  book,  and  one 
should  suppose  that  the  other  St.  Louis  professors,  as  also  all 
pastors  who  studied  there,  likewise  know  it.  This  book  states 
at  considerable  length  that  the  word  "election"  in  the  F.  C.  is 
used  in  a  wider  sense  than  that  commonly  employed  by  the  dog- 
maticians,  but  it  nowhere  intimates  that  according  to  the  F.  C. 
all  men  are  elected  "in  the  wider  sense."  Our  opponents,  there- 
fore, had  no  right  whatever  to  impute  such  a  nonsensical  notion 
to  us. 

Moreover,  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  controversy  we  made 
a  clear  statement  ("Altes  und  Neues,"  February,  1880)  and  printed 
both  definitions  from  the  text-book  of  Dr.  Walther  so  that  no 
one  could  mistake  our  meaning.  Notwithstanding  this,  our 
opponents  at  once  caught  up  the  expression,  election  "in  the  wider 
sense",  and  proclaimed  to  all  the  world  that  we  meant  an  election 
of  all  men. 

But  if  there  was  no  shadow  of  excuse  for  this  shameful  mis- 
representation in  the  beginning,  its  constant  employment  later 
on  is  even  more  criminal.  At  the  Conference  in  Chicago  (Octo- 
ber, 1880)  we  were  at  once  met  with  the  accusation  that  we  were 
teaching  an  election  of  all  men.  We  declared  most  emphatically 
that  we  did  not  believe  such  an  election,  and  that  we  had  never 
taught  it.  (See  the  Minutes,  p.  14,  15,  and  many  others.)  Dr. 
Walther  finally  admitted:  "One  may  indeed  speak  of  predesti- 
nation in  the  wider  and  in  the  narrower  sense,  and  under  certain 
circumstances  we  must  speak  of  it  so"  (Minutes,  p.  18).     These 


Thesis  I.  585 

are  his  own  words!  We  can  therefore,  and  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances we  must,  speak  of  predestination  in  the  wider  sense. 
Can  Dr.  Walther  mean  to  say  that  under  certain  circumstances 
we  must  teach  that  all  men  are  elected?  Surely  not;  the  phrase, 
"election  in  the  wider  sense"  therefore  cannot  have  this  meaning. 
But  when  we  now  "under  certain  circumstances"  use  this  expres- 
sion, and  declare  time  and  again  that  we  do  not  mean  an  elec- 
tion of  all  men,  Dr.  Walther  none  the  less  declares  that  this 
is  our  meaning  and  the  sense  of  the  expression,  and  700  pastors 
chime  in  without  hesitation. 

After  Dr.  Walther  confessed  that  this  expression  can  be, 
and  under  certain  circumstances  even  must  be,  employed,  there 
was  only  one  question  requiring  answer,  namely:  Does  the  Y. 
C.  use  the  word  election  in  the  wider  sense?  This  question  we 
answer  affirmatively,  and  our  opponents  negatively.  We  sub- 
stantiated our  answer  from  the  clear  declarations  of  the  Confes- 
sion in  §  13-24;  our  opponents  would  not  acknowledge  that  this 
passage  contains  the  description  proper  of  election,  but  attempted 
to  compel  us  to  take  §  5  as  the  proper  description;  but  §  5 
does  not  say  at  all  what  election  or  predestination  unto  salvation 
is,  what  is  comprised  in  it  and  what  it  contains,  it  merely  states 
to  whom  it  pertains.  But  we  will  speak  more  fully  about  this 
later  on.  We  now  demonstrated  to  them  that  they  themselves 
had  already  acknowledged  in  §  13-24  a  "complete  definition  of 
God's  eternal  election."  This  passage  contains  the  eight  decrees. 
In  the  Report  of  '79,  pp.  51,  52,  53,  and  88,  they  had  declared 
that  these  8  decrees  are  not  predestination,  but  simply  contain 
something  that  must  also  be  preached;  the  thing  itself,  predesti- 
nation, is  not  found  there,  but  in  §  23.  (Now  they  tell  us  it  is 
found  in  §  5;  like  blind  men  they  grope  about  in  the  F.  C.  fool- 
ishly.) We  then  directed  our  opponents  to  the  declarations  of 
the  F.  C.  both  before  and  after  the  eight  decrees,  stating  explic- 
itly that  all  this  must  be  taken  together  and  included  and  nothing 
thereof  omitted.  Thereupon  they  admitted  in  "Lehre  und 
Wehre,"  May  1880,  that  the  entire  passage  does  contain  a  com- 
plete definition.  "A  definition,"  however,  states  what  election 
is  and  what  belongs  to  election.  Whereas  formerly  they  denied 
that  the  eight  decrees  were  "the  thing  itself,"  they  then  admitted 
that  the  eight  decrees  were  the  thing  itself  or  belonged  thereto. 
They  themselves,  therefore,  had  spoken  of  election  at  first  in  the 
narrower  sense,  and  afterwards  in  the  wider  sense.     Thev  still 


586  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

sought  to  hold  fast  their  false  doctrine.  But  this  one  point,  that 
the  eight  decrees  belong  to  election,  they  had  admitted  to  us 
already  previous  to  the  Chicago  Conference,  and  this  and  noth- 
ing but  this  is  what  we  and  all  our  former  teachers  in  the  Church 
mean  by  the  expression  "election  in  the  wider  sense." 

When  we  continued  to  point  to  this  admission  at  the  Chicago 
Conference,  Dr.  Walther  replied:  "When  attention  is  drawn  to 
the  fact,  that  not  only  on  the  side  of  our  opponents  differently 
sounding  definitions  have  been  given,  but  also  in  our  publications 
(writings  of  Missouri),  as  for  instance  that  the  eight  propositions 
belong  to  election,  it  is  certainly  remarkable  that  people  other- 
wise acute  should  not  (so  to  say)  with  half  an  eye  see  what  is 
so  simple  even  for  a  child  to  comprehend.  When  it  is  said, 
they  do  not  belong  to  election,  a  strict  definition  of  election  is 
meant.  When  it  is  said,  they  do-  belong  to  election,  an  extended 
description  of  election  is  had  in  view."     Minutes,  p.  26. 

This  is  the  way  in  which  Dr.  Walther  covers  his  retreat. 
This  is  the  way  he  extracts  himself  out  of  a  difHcult  position  in 
the  midst  of  a  fog,  instead  of  honestly  surrendering  when  beaten 
with  his  own  publications!  "Strict  definition"  is  what  he  terms 
it,  and  this  is  precisely  what  we  mean  with  the  expression  "in  the 
narower  sense";  and  "extended  description,"  or  as  "Lehre  und 
Wehre"  had  it  "complete  definition"  is  nothing  but  election  in 
the  wider  sense.  And  the  difference  is  precisely  as  stated  by 
Dr.  Walther,  in  the  one  case  the  8  decrees  are  included,  in  the 
other  case  they  are  not. 

Dr.  Walther,  therefore,  could  not  escape,  he  had  to  admit 
the  validity  of  our  distinction;  in  fact  he  was  compelled  to  use 
it  himself  to  explain  the  different  expressions  of  his  own  adherents. 

But  now  he  gave  the  matter  a  turn,  as  though  we  had  attacked 
this  distinction  on  his  part,  whereas  he  had  constantly  reviled  us 
for  adhering  to  it;  he  is  surprised  that  we  cannot  comprehend 
what  is  so  childishly  easy,  and  what  he  himself  always  could  and 
desired  to  comprehend.  Instead  of  honestly  confessing:  Yes,  dear 
brethren,  in  this  point  you  have  been  right!  he  pretends  to  have 
always  been  right  himself  while  we  failed  to  comprehend  it!  The 
prisoner  is  to  be  put  into  the  cell;  at  the  door  he  turns  suddenly 
about  and  pushes  his  friend  of  the  police  in,  locks  the  door,  and 
marches  off  with  the  key!  That  is  Dr.  Walther  —  we  so-called 
opponents  have  made  his  acquaintance! 

But  this  is  not  the  worst  of  his  procedure  in  the  matter. 


Thesis  I.  587 

After  declaring,  when  proof  was  submitted  to  him  from  his  own 
pubHcations,  that  what  he  had  controverted  all  along  was  easy 
even  for  a  child  to  comprehend,  one  would  suppose  that  after- 
wards he  would  be  silent  about  it.  But  what  did  Dr.  Walther  do? 
Four  or  five  months  after  the  Conference  he  wrote  his  first  tract 
about  the  predestination  controversy,  and  in  this  he  brings  up 
again  the  same  old  accusations,  that  we  teach  an  election  in  the 
wider  sense,  and  that  means  that  all  men  are  elected!  He  never 
says  a  word  to  show  that  "under  certain  circumstances"  one  may 
use  this  expression,  and  even  must  use  it;  never  a  word  that 
he  and  his  adherents  had  at  times  included  the  8  decrees  in 
discussing  the  F.  C,  and  at  times  had  excluded  them,  and  that 
thus  they  themselves  had  actually  spoken  of  election  in  the  wider 
and  again  in  the  narrower  sense,  and  that  they  had  been  cor- 
nered by  this  at  Chicago.  And  now  that  he  knew  most  emphat- 
ically (if  indeed  he  had  not  known  all  along)  that  we  did  not 
mean  an  election  of  all  men  in  vising  this  expression,  he  still  lays 
this  foolish  notion  at  our  door.  In  fact,  this  shameful  perversion, 
this  open  sin  against  the  eighth  commandment,  is  the  very  kernel 
of  the  whole  tract,  is  at  least  one  blade  of  the  shears  with  which 
he  attempts  to  crush  us.  It  is  only  necessary  to  look  at  the  tract 
to  see  this;  on  page  7  he  says:  "On  this  their  (our)  assertion, 
that  the  F.  C.  speaks  of  predestination  in  the  wider  sense,  rests 
their  entire  doctrinal  structure.  With  this  their  assertion,  if  true 
or  if  not  true,  stands  and  falls  everything  they  aflfirm  or  deny 
in  distinction  from  ourselves." 

Let  Dr.  Walther's  words  be  noted;  he  declares  that  if  the 
F.  C.  speaks  of  predestination  in  the  wider  sense  —  that  is, 
according  to  his  own  explanation,  if  the  8  decrees  "belong  to 
election"  —  then  everything  stands  that  we  have  affirmed  and 
denied  over  against  St.  Louis!  This,  for  one  thing,  is  an  excel- 
lent testimony  in  our  favor,  although  of  no  avail  against  St. 
Louis  itself;  for  these  our  opponents  will  never  surrender,  but 
continue  to  invent  new  subterfuges.  But  of  this  we  will  say 
nothing  further  here. 

But  now,  in  order  to  convince  his  "beloved  readers"  that 
our  assertion  is  not  true,  he  points  them  to  the  fact,  that  the 
F.  C.  declares  clearly  and  explicitly,  election  pertains  not  at  the 
same  time  to  the  godly  and  the  wicked,  therefore  does  not 
embrace  all  men.  Election  in  the  wider  sense  would  be,  he 
declared,  an  election  of  all  men.     Accordingly,  every  Lutheran 


588  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

Christian  can  see  that  the  F.  C.  does  not  speak  of  election  in 
the  wider  sense,  and  that  we  therefore  have  fallen  away  from  the 
Confession.  It  may  appear  incredible  that  Dr.  Walther  should 
say  this  after  what  had  taken  place  in  Chicago;  but  here  are 
his  own  words. 

Tract,  p.  8:  "If  any  one  desires  to  force  upon  you  the  doc- 
trine of  a  so-called  predestination  in  the  wider  sense,  pertaining 
not  only  to  the  elect  children  of  God  who  are  ordained  unto 
salvation,  but  to  the  godly  and  the  wicked  at  the  same  time''  etc. 

Page  10:  "But  how  intelligent  people  can  say:  The  F.  C. 
indeed  declares  explicitly  in  the  beginning  that  election  does 
not  extend  to  the  pious  and  to  the  wicked,  but  pertains  only 
to  the  elect  children  of  God,  yet  it  speaks  of  predestination  in 
the  wider  sense,  which  pertains  to  all  men"  etc. 

Page  10  and  11:  "They  (we  opponents)  employ  all  the 
logical  skill  and  acumen  possible  to  demonstrate  that  the  first 
main  proposition  does  not  say,  or  does  not  mean,  what  it  says, 
that  it  speaks  indeed  of  election  which  does  not  pertain  to  all 
men,  but  that  it  means  none  the  less  an  election  which  does 
pertain  to  all  men,  for  it  speaks  of  an  election  in  the  wider  sense!" 

It  is  in  this  manner  that  Dr.  Walther  works  upon  his 
"beloved  Lutheran  Christians"  by  means  of  open  falsehoods, 
which  have  been  shown  to  him  repeatedly  to  be  such!  In  this 
manner  he  perverts  and  reviles  an  expression  which  he  himself 
found  necessary  in  Chicago,  to  which  he  was  compelled  to  resort 
in  order  to  explain  "definitions  differing  in  sound"  among  his 
own  followers!  He  knows  that  we  do  not  hold  what  he  accuses 
us  of;  he  knows  that  our  dogmaticians  had  no  such  notion, 
and  surely  he  should  know  whether  he  himself  had  the  notion 
when  he  himself  used  the  expression.  But  what  of  it?  He 
simply  desires  to  crush  by  this  means  our  contradiction  of  his 
false  doctrine,  so  that  he  may  brand  us  as  having  fallen  from 
the  Confession.  The  argument  suits  his  object  exactly,  every 
"beloved  Lutheran  Christian"  can  comprehend  it.  The  Confes- 
sion declares:  Election  does  not  pertain  at  the  same  time  to  the 
godly  and  to  the  wicked;  these  miserable  opponents,  however, 
say:  The  Confession  uses  the  word  election  in  the  wider  sense. 
And  that  this  means  an  election  of  all  men  Dr.  Walther  can 
of  course  readily  tell  people  who  have  not  read  our  utterances 
and  do  not  otherwise  know  the  expression. 


Thesis  I.  589 

This,  however,  characterizes  the  tactics  of  our  opponents 
throughout.  Their  writings  against  us  overflow  with  misrep- 
resentations, perversions,  and  sophistical  conclusions.  P.  Stock- 
hard  alone  forms  an  exception,  having  atttacked  us  indeed  as 
sharply  as  the  rest,  but  always  endeavoring  to  understand  our 
true  meaning.  Many  of  the  misrepresentations  resorted  to  are 
not  as  gross  as  the  one  mentioned  above,  but  more  skillfully 
introduced,  and  yet  not  a  whit  more  honest.  Their  entire  dem- 
onstration seeking  to  prove  us  synergists  is  all  of  the  same  sort. 

We  introduce  a  few  more  of  the  grosser  misrepresentations. 

Our  opponents  had  appealed  repeatedly  in  substantiation  of 
their  error  to  Dr.  Luther's  preface  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
and  w^e  had  shown  them  just  as  repeatedly  that  they  did  not 
understand  Luther's  words  correctly,  and  that  their  appeal  to 
these  words  was  therefore  useless.  The  thing  was  so  plain  that 
Dr.  Walther  found  it  necessary  to  publish  a  kind  of  retraction  or 
explanation.  But  in  this  he  represents  matters  as  though  we 
ourselves  had  assailed  Luther's  words  and  had  blamed  him, 
namely  Dr.  Walther,  for  having  quoted  these  words  of  Luther. 
In  "Lehre  und  Wehre,"  1881,  49,  we  read:  "We  consider  it  a 
disgrace  for  our  Lutheran  Church  that  so  many,  who  pretend 
to  be  members  of  this  Church,  now  speak  of  Luther's  words  as 
though  Luther,  whom  they  too  praise  as  a  Reformer,  has  been 
a  horrible  heretic,  so  that  the  mere  use  of  his  words  already 
creates  the  suspicion  of  heresy." 

Is  not  this  another  skillful  trick?  We  had  demonstrated 
that  Luther's  words  are  perfectly  correct.  We  had  blamed  Dr. 
Waltlier  for  misinterpreting  the  words  —  finding  fault  not  with 
Dr.  Luther,  but  with  Dr.  Walther;  Dr.  W.,  however,  so  turns 
things  as  to  make  it  appear  that  we  had  branded  Luther  as  a 
"horrible  heretic"  and  had  found  fault  with  him.  Dr.  W.,  for 
even  having  used  Luther's  words. 

Evidently,  if  he  could  raise  the  suspicion  in  the  minds  of  his 
readers  that  we  agreed  neither  with  the  F.  C.  nor  with  Luther, 
he  would  gain  much  for  his  own  cause.  But  we  do  not  envy  the 
success  he  may  reap  by  such  means ;  we  only  lament  that  he  can 
so  far  forget  himself  and  work  so  much  harm  in  the  Church,  and 
that  the  host  of  pastors  in  the  Missouri  Synod  is  either  so  idiotic 
or  so  conscienceless  as  to  submit  quietly  to  such  tricks. 

We  indeed  teach  that  election  or  predestination  pertains  only 


590  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

to  the  children  of  God,  but  we  also  teach  that  this  election  took 
place  on  the  basis  of  the  universal  counsel  of  grace,  and  that  it 
can  be  studied  and  presented  only  in  intimate  connection  with 
this  universal  counsel.  The  universal  counsel  of  grace  belongs 
to  election  as  surely  as  the  foundation  walls  of  a  building  belong 
to  that  building.  It  is  true  indeed  that  several  of  the  provisions 
or  decrees  of  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  pertain  to  all  men; 
but  it  does  not  thereby  follow  that  the  last  of  these  decrees  also 
pertains  to  all.  Redemption  is  not  yet  election,  nor  is  the  call 
taken  by  itself.  The  whole  series  of  decrees  can  well  be  summed 
up  in  the  designation  "election",  because  the  last  one  of  them 
treats  properly  of  the  election  and  predestination  of  persons  and 
at  the  same  time  includes  the  entire  result  of  all  the  foregoing 
gracious  works  and  decrees  of  God.  But  if  this  last  decree  were 
left  out,  the  rest  could  never  be  called  "election."  Therefore, 
the  first  7  decrees  may  apply  to  a  man,  but  if  he  does  not  actually 
remain  in  faith  till  the  end,  he  is  not  chosen,  and  election  does 
not  pertain  to  him.  And  this  is  a  very  essential  part  of  the  doc- 
trine of  election,  namely  that  these  seven  decrees  pertained  to 
him,  and  that  thus  he  could  readily  have  persevered  in  faith,  if 
he  had  not,  as  our  Confession  declares,  himself  wilfully  turned 
away. 

This  serves  to  explain  the  two  propositions  in  the  Confes- 
sion, which  Dr.  Walther  seeks  to  use  against  us  like  the  horns 
of  a  dilemma.  The  first  is  the  sentence,  that  election  is  a  cause 
which  procures,  works,  helps,  and  promotes  our  salvation  and 
what  pertains  thereto.  In  the  8  decrees  we  do  really  find  all 
that  belongs  to  our  salvation;  and  everything  there  is  fully  sufifi- 
cient,  so  that  all  can  well  be  saved,  and  therefore  that  all  could 
also  be  elected.  Just  this  is  what  makes  the  Confession  so 
excellent  and  full  of  consolation.  The  second  sentence  is  this,  that 
election  extends  only  to  the  children  of  God  and  not  to  the 
wicked;  for  those  of  them  who  do  not  "hear  and  ponder"  the 
Word  at  all  are  not  "converted  to  true  repentance,"  as  the  3d 
decree  declares,  and  therefore  they  do  not  accept  Christ  in  true 
repentance  through  right  faith,  hence  they  are  not  justified,  nor 
received  unto  grace,  unto  adoption  and  inheritance  of  eternal 
life.  Those,  however,  who  indeed  through  the  grace  of  God 
believe  for  a  time,  yet  become  indolent  and  secure,  neglect  the 
Word  of  God,  do  not  pray  diligently,  do  not  abide  in  God's  good- 
ness, and  do  not  use  faithfully  the  gifts  received,  are  not  pre- 


Thesis  I.  591 

served  in  faith  according  to  the  Tth  decree,  but  fall  away  and 
thus  lose  again  "the  adoption  and  inheritance  of  eternal  life" 
which  they  received  in  justification.  They,  therefore,  are  not 
predestinated  to  be  eternally  saved  and  glorified  in  eternal  life. 
In  short,  all  the  previous  decrees  may  have  pertained  to  them, 
but  this  last  does  not  from  which  alone  the  whole  can  be  termed 
"election."  For  this  reason  election  does  not  pertain  to  any  of 
the  wicked. 

In  conclusion  we  would  state  again  and  emphatically  that 
"election  in  the  wider  sense"  and  "election  in  the  narrower  sense" 
are  not  two  different  elections;  there  is  only  one  election,  namely 
the  one  designated  in  the  8  decrees.  But  the  word  "election" 
is  used  dififerently ;  at  one  time  to  designate  only  the  separation  of 
persons,  and  indicating  the  connection  with  the  universal  counsel 
of  grace  by  the  expression,  "in  view  of  faith",  or  by  words  of  like 
import;  and  again,  to  comprise  the  entire  counsel  of  grace,  the 
whole  of  it  being  designated  by  the  word  election.  The  persons 
of  whom  it  is  predicated  that  God  elected  them  to  eternal  life  are 
precisely  the  same  in  both  instances,  namely  the  children  of  God. 
But  the  provisions  of  God,  without  which  there  could  be  no  chil- 
dren of  God  at  all  among  sinners,  are  fully  stated  in  the  one  in- 
stance, while  in  the  other  only  the  connecting  link  of  faith  is 
indicated.  Will  not  our  St.  Louis  friends  finally  take  a  better 
view  of  the  matter? 

Another  and  a  more  well  known  example  of  a  word  used 
in  a  wider  and  in  a  stricter  sense  is  found  in  the  word  "Gospel." 
This  too  has  occasioned  a  similar  controversy  in  the  Church. 
The  5th  Art.  of  the  F.  C.  points  out  "that  the  term  'Gospel'  is 
not  always  employed  and  understood  in  one  and  the  same  sense, 
but  in  two  ways,  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  also  by  ancient  and 
modern  church-teachers."  At  one  time  it  is  used  to  designate 
only  the  glad  tidings  of  Christ,  and  this  is  its  special  and  strictest 
sense.  Then  again  it  is  used  to  designate  the  entire  Word  of  God, 
inclusive  also  of  the  law;  this  is  its  wider  sense.  When  it  is  used 
in  this  wider  sense,  we  can  well  say  that  the  Gospel  rebukes  sin; 
but  when  it  is  used  in  the  stricter  sense,  it  would  be  altogether 
wrong  to  say  that  it  reveals  and  rebukes  sin.  Now,  several 
theologians  had  found  such  expressions  in  Luther,  and  declared 
that  Luther  taught,  the  Gospel  as  strictly  defined  reveals  sin. 
That  was  false  doctrine.  And  our  opponents  proceed  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  way  as  far  as  the  word  election  is  concerned.    Our 


592  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

Confession  declares  that  election  is  a  cause  which  procures,  works^ 
etc.,  our  salvation  and  all  pertaining  thereto.  That  is  perfectly^ 
correct,  when  we  remember  that  here  the  word  election  is  used  in 
the  wider  sense,  namely  so  as  to  include  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  etc.  But  our  opponents 
deny  that  this  is  the  case,  and  still  they  persist  in  saying  that  elec- 
tion is  a  cause  of  our  salvation,  etc.  Just  as  those  of  old  denied 
that  the  word  "Gospel"  can  be  used  to  include  the  law,  and  still 
asserted  that  the  Gospel  reveals  sin — thus  ascribing  to  the  Gospel 
proper  the  work  of  the  law — so  now  our  opponents  deny  that  the 
word  "election'  can  be  used  to  include  the  universal  counsel  of 
grace,  and  still  claim  that  election  procures,  works,  etc.,  every- 
thing, also  for  example  faith — thus  ascribing  to  the  selection  of 
persons  the  work  proper  to  the  universal  counsel  of  grace,  namely 
the  calling,  justification,  and  preservation  in  faith.  Yet  it  is  easy 
to  see  that  this  produces  dangerous  false  doctrine,  the  very  doc- 
trine of  Calvinism,  that  God  from  the  start  has  passed  by  the 
majority  of  men — as  we  shall  see  more  fully  further  on. 

All  can  see  how  important  it  is  that  our  opponents  be  con- 
troverted in  this  error.  We  have  already  heard  from  Dr.  Wal- 
ther's  own  tract  that,  if  our  assertion  in  regard  to  the  wider  sense 
of  the  word  election  in  the  F.  C.  is  true,  all  that  we  have  alarmed 
and  denied  in  distinction  from  our  opponents  must  stand,  i.  e. 
our  entire  contention  in  the  controversy  is  correct.  Most  assur- 
edly, our  assertion  is  true ;  they  have  not  overthrown  it  and  never 
will.  When  they  object  in  the  Report  of  '70 :  "Is  vocation  elec- 
tion? Is  justification  election?  Is  glorification  election?  Never; 
on  the  contrary,  those  who  are  elected  receive  all  this" — the  very 
same  can  be  argued  against  the  use  of  the  word  Gospel  in  the 
wider  sense  (when  it  is  meant  to  include  the  law):  Is  the  first 
commandment  gospel?  Is  the  second  commandment  gospel? 
etc.  But  such  objections  will  never  change  the  fact,  that  the 
word  "Gospel"  has  been  used  in  a  wider  and  in  a  narrower  sense, 
and  yet  there  are  not  two  Gospels  but  only  one. 


THESIS  II. 

Election  is  revealed  in  the  Scriptio'es,  and  is  therefore  no  more 
a  '''mystery''''  than  any  other  article  of  faith. 

The  discussion  was  as  follows: — 

The  entire  Gospel  is  originally  a  mystery.  No  man  knows 
aught  of  it  in  himeslf.  It  is  different  in  regard  to  the  law.  This 
was  written  in  man's  heart  at  creation,  and  this  writing  has  not 
been  wholly  obliterated  by  the  fall.  It  is  found  in  the  heathen, 
who  have  not  the  written  law  and  yet  retain  some  knowledge  of 
right  and  wrong.     Rom.  2,  14-15. 

To  be  sure,  this  knowledge  is  exceedingly  imperfect.  Man 
does  not  know  original  sin,  nor  does  he  perceive  that  unbelief  and 
all  sinful  desires  are  sin.  Paul  tells  us:  I  had  not  known  lust, 
except  the  law  had  said.  Thou  shalt  not  covet.  But  now  when 
the  law  condemns  "lust,"  this  strikes  the  natural  heart.  Even 
reason  can  to  some  extent  understand  that,  if  it  is  sin,  for  instance, 
to  commit  murder,  it  must  also  be  sin  to  have  the  lust  of  murder. 
In  brief,  the  law  and  its  demands  and  curses  find  a  certain  echo 
in  the  natural  conscience;  to  be  sure,  an  echo  which  only  serves 
to  intensify  the  enmity  against  God. 

The  Gospel,  however,  was  not  written  in  man's  heart  at 
creation.  Man  indeed  could  not  help  but  know  that  he  owed 
obedience  to  his  Creator.  This  is  self-evident.  But  it  is  not 
self-evident  that  after  he  had  fallen  away  from  God,  he  would 
receive  mercy  from  God.  God  owed  man  no  mercy,  it  was  His 
perfect  right  to  condemn  us  altogether;  it  is  a  perfectly  free  deter- 
mination of  His  will  to  rescue  us.  Man,  therefore,  could  of  him- 
self know  nothing  of  this,  not  even  before  the  fall;  we  have 
learned  this  only  by  divine  revelation.  It  is  for  this  reason  that 
Paul  calls  the  Gospel  a  mystery  which  hath  been  hid  from  ages 
and  from  generations.  Col.  1,  26. 

It  follows  from  this  that  the  Gospel  finds  no  echo  in  the 
natural  heart.  It  will,  therefore,  in  spite  of  all  preaching  in  a 
certain  sense  remain  a  mystery  for  all  those  who  are  not  enlight- 
ened by  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  may  learn  all  the  articles  of  faith 
from  the  Scriptures,  but  that  these  things  are  divine  wisdom  and 

(693) 


694  A   Testimony  Agamst  the  False  Doctrhie,  Etc. 

truth  they  will  not  comprehend.  For  the  Jews  the  Gospel  is  an 
offense,  and  for  the  Greeks  it  is  foolishness.  In  this  sense  the 
Gospel  continues  to  be  a  mystery  still,  "hid",  2  Cor.  4,  3,  from  the 
prudent  and  the  wise,  Matt.  11,  25. 

But  the  mystery  is  now  revealed  in  the  Word  and  is  known 
by  believers.     Matt.  11,  25;  1  Cor.  2,  10-16;  etc. 

This  is  sufficient  to  show  in  what  respect  articles  of  faith 
may  be  called  mysteries.  A  mystery  not  revealed  in  the  Word 
can  be  no  article  of  faith.  How  shall  they  believe  what  they  have 
not  heard? 

Reason,  to  be  sure,  raises  questions  about  all  the  articles, 
which  are  not  answered  in  the  Scriptures;  but  these  questions 
do  not  concern  faith.  What  we  are  to  believe  is  clearly  revealed, 
so  that  we  can  read  it  in  the  Bible  and  understand  the  connec- 
tion of  the  different  articles.  One  article  of  faith  always  casts 
light  upon  another.  The  article  of  justification  by  grace  for  the 
sake  of  Christ's  merit  through  faith  is  the  sun  of  the  Scriptures, 
illuminating  all  the  rest,  so  that  none  can  be  correctly  understood 
without  it.  Baptism,  for  instance,  "works  forgiveness  of  sins, 
delivers  from  death  and  the  devil,  and  gives  eternal  salvation  to 
all  who  believe  this,  as  the  words  and  promises  declare."  No 
man  understands  this  correctly  without  knowing  that  Christ  has 
obtained  forgiveness  of  sin,  life,  and  salvation  for  us,  which  is 
now  offered,  given,  and  sealed  to  us  in  Baptism. 

In  the  sense  described  the  article  of  God's  eternal  election 
is  also  a  mystery,  yea  to  a  certain  extent  the  sum  of  all  mysteries, 
embracing  all  the  rest,  as  we  shall  see.  But  this  article  is  also  a 
revealed  mystery,  otherwise  it  could  be  no  article  of  faith.  Our 
Confession  therefore  declares:  "This — eternal  election — is  not 
to  be  investigated  in  the  secret  counsel  of  God,  but  sought  in  the 
Word  of  God,  where  it  is  also  revealed."  Epit.  XI,  6.  Again: 
We  are  to  think  and  speak  concerning  election  as  "the  counsel, 
purpose,  and  ordination  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  is  the  true 
Book  of  Life,  has  been  revealed  to  us  through  the  Word."  Sol. 
Decl.  XI,  13.  Similar  passages  occur  frequently  in  the  Con- 
fession. St.  Paul  declares:  "I  have  not  shunned  to  declare 
unto  you  all  the  counsel  of  God."  Acts  20,  27.  Evidently,  this 
includes  the  counsel  of  predestination.  The  same  thing  is  com- 
firmed  by  all  those  passages  which  tell  us  that  the  articles  of  faith 
are  revealed;  and  that  the  doctrine  of  election  is  an  article  of 
faith  both  of  the  contending  parties  admit ;   but  the  Scriptures  say 


Thesis  II.  595 

nowhere  that  that  election  is  a  mystery  in  a  special  sense.  Rom. 
11,  33,  we  will  consider  below. 

Our  opponents,  however,  shroud  the  entire  article  in  "mys- 
teries". The  fact,  that  there  is  an  eternal  election  of  God,  they 
too  find  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 

But  all  that  pertains  to  this  election:  why  God  elected  only 
a  few;  why  those  only  whom  He  did  elect,  and  not  the  rest; 
according  to  what  rule  He  elected  the  one  and  rejected  the  other — 
all  this,  they  tell  us,  is  not  revealed.  Whereas  the  entire  Scrip- 
tures testify  that  God  "looks  to  faith"  in  justification  and  salva- 
tion as  it  takes  place  in  time,  Jer.  5,  3,  so  that  our  Confession  says 
directly:  "This  faith  constitutes  the  difiference  between  those 
who  are  saved  and  those  who  are  damned,  between  the  worthy 
and  the  unworthy,"  Apol.  Art.  3.  Our  opponents  aver:  In  elec- 
tion God  did  not  look  to  faith.  They  say:  "The  rule  accord- 
ing to  which  God  in  eternity  elected  and  separated  is  unknown 
to  us."  "Lehre  und  Wehre,"  1881,  367.  They  do  not  know 
"'why  God  did  not  elect  the  rest,"  p.  368.  In  Chicago  they  were 
confronted  with  the  statement:  Our  Confession  declares:  God 
in  His  eternal  counsel  determined  that  He  would  save  no  one 
except  those  who  believe  in  Christ.  Dr.  Walther  replied:  "I 
do  not  accept  this,  if  you  make  it  the  rule  of  election,"  Min.,  47. 

They,  then,  do  not  know  according  to  what  rule  or  order  God 
proceeded  in  election;  nevertheless  they  claim  to  know  that 
in  any  case  He  did  not  proceed  according  to  the  revealed  rule: 
He  that  believes  shall  be  saved.  Election,  therefore,  would  be  a 
mystery  in  every  respect,  a  riddle,  concerning  which  the  only 
thing  known  would  be  that  there  is  such  a  mystery;  just  as  the 
heathen  know  indeed  that  there  is  a  God,  but  do  not  know  who 
and  what  He  is.  Missouri  accordingly  calls  election  simply  a 
great  mystery:  "God's  eternal  election  is  the  wonderful  mystery 
hovering  over  certain  persons",  "L.  u.  W.",  1880,  147.  Our  Con- 
fession also  speaks  of  a  secret,  unsearchable  providence  of  God; 
but  it  keeps  repeating  and  re-repeating  that  election  must  not  be 
sought  in  this  secret  providence,  but  in  the  revealed  Word.  Our 
opponents,  however,  take  this  secret  providence  to  be  election 
itself,  and  call  it  a  mystery  in  distinction  from  the  revealed  counsel 
of  God.  While  they  too  consider  all  articles  of  faith  mysteries  in 
the  sense  described  above,  that  is  revealed  mysteries,  they  consider 
election,  in  distinction  from  all  the  rest  a  mystery  in  a  special 
sense. 


596  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctri7ie,  Etc. 

The  essence  of  this  mystery,  however,  according  to  all  that 
Missouri  says  about  it,  would  be  found  not  merely  in  the  fact,  that, 
as  they  say,  we  know  less  about  this  article,  but  in  the  fact,  that 
all  we  do  know  of  it  does  not  agree  with  the  revealed  Word,  but 
contradicts  it  grossly.  According  to  the  revealed  Word  God 
earnestly  desires  to  declare  all  men  free  from  sin  and  condemna- 
tion for  Christ's  sake,  yet  only  when  they  believe  in  Christ.  This 
faith,  accordingly,  He  desires  to  work  in  all.  Those,  however, 
who  resist  the  Holy  Spirit  wilfully  remain  in  unbelief,  and  hence 
remain  under  sin  and  condemnation.  According  to  Missourian 
doctrine  the  very  opposite  has  taken  place  in  eternal  election.  God 
is  said  from  the  very  start  to  have  taken  only  a  few  into  considera- 
tion. These  few,  however.  He  elected  infallibly  unto  salvation 
without  regard  to  faith.  When  a  person  stops  and  considers  the 
enormity  of  such  doctrine,  he  must  be  astounded  at  the  possibility 
of  introducing  such  an  abomination  into  the  very  midst  of  the 
Lutheran  Church.  God,  they  tell  us,  in  His  omniscience  saw  the 
entire  human  race  as  it  now  actually  exists:  all  alike  depraved 
in  sin,  but  all  also  redeemed  by  Christ.  Now,  in  this  condition  He 
is  said  to  have  instituted  the  separation,  decreeing  for  one  part  of 
them:  These  shall  and  must  be  saved,  to  these  I  will  give  grace 
unto  faith  and  perseverance.  By  this  their  salvation  would  then 
be  assured  in  any  case,  not  through  the  present  order  of  grace, 
not  through  the  revealed  Word,  not  through  faith,  but  simply 
through  this  mysterious  and  absolute  decree  of  God.  The  re- 
vealed Word  and  faith,  according  to  Missourian  doctrine,  are  only 
the  means  by  which  God  in  time  executes  His  decree.  The  actual 
selection  of  the  persons  who  are  saved  has  in  no  way  depended  on 
faith. 

But  how  about  the  merit  of  Christ?  The  Scriptures  declare 
that  all  spiritual  blessings  flow  from  Christ's  wounds  and  are  pur- 
chased by  Him.  Does  this  apply  also  to  eternal  election,  which 
Missouri  calls  the  foremost  and  highest  good?  Did  Christ  pur- 
chase this  blessing  also  on  the  cross?  Not  according  to  Mis- 
sourian doctrine.  Our  opponents  indeed  retain  the  proposition, 
that  God  elected  for  Christ's  sake,  and  that  Christ's  merit  is  one 
cause  of  predestination.  It  is  hard  to  understand  how  they  mean 
this;  for  it  is  certain  that  they  do  not  mean  what  the  words  as 
they  stand  say.  When  we  say  that  Christ's  merit  is  the  cause  of 
justification,  our  meaning  is  that  Christ  obtained  for  us  the  grace 
by  virtue  of  which  we  are  justified.     Can  Missourians  wish  to  say 


Thesis  II.  597 

that  Christ  obtained  for  us  the  grace  by  virtue  of  which  we  are 
elected?  Impossible;  for  Christ's  merit  is  universal;  the  grace 
He  obtained  He  obtained  for  all  men.  Since  eternal  election, 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  our  opponents,  is  an  act  in  which 
God  (lid  not  look  for  faith,  which  nowise  depended  on  the  faith 
of  individual  men,  therefore  this  grace  obtained  by  Christ  should 
have  properly  belonged  to  all  men,  and  all  should  have  been  pre- 
destinated unto  eternal  life  and  unto  faith.  Hence  it  is  easy  to 
see  that  our  opponents  cannot  mean  to  say  that  Christ  obtained 
the  grace  of  election  or  the  election  of  grace.  And  if  they  should 
say  this,  it  would  follow  that  Christ  did  not  obtain  the  same  grace 
for  all.  > 

Predestination,  therefore,  would  not  be  an  act  of  God  having 
its  foundation  in  Christ's  merit,  like  justification  and  salvation  in 
time,  nor  dependent,  like  these,  on  faith.  To  be  sure,  this  agrees 
ill  with  the  revealed  Word.  But  more  than  this.  The  elect  have 
been  chosen  according  to  Missourian  doctrine  without  regard  to 
faith,  yet  with  the  provision  that,  as  a  result  of  election,  they  shall 
•come  to  faith.  Since  now  election  is  unalterable,  these  must  of 
necessity  come  to  believe,  and  must  of  necessity  persevere  in  faith. 
But  the  Scriptures  teach  that  indeed  God  alone  converts  men, 
gives  faith,  and  preserves  it;  yet  they  teach  just  as  emphatically 
that  by  wilful  resistance  men  may  frustrate  this  gracious  work, 
.and  even  after  their  conversion  fall  away  again.  God  indeed 
works  everything,  but  not  with  irresistible  power.  Since,  how- 
ever, according  to  Missourian  doctrine,  God,  from  the  very  start 
and  by  an  absolute  decree,  predestinated  a  certain  number  so  that 
they  shall  and  must  in  any  case  come  to  believe,  an  irresistible 
grace  of  conversion  must  be  maintained  for  these;  for  the  elect 
there  is  no  longer  the  possibility  of  wilfully  resisting  the  Holy 
Spirit;  if  ever  they  fall  from  faith  through  wilful  sin,  they  must 
again  be  converted.  And  so  they  tell  us  Christ  spoke  to  Peter: 
"Thou  art  one  of  the  elect;  if  thou  lose  faith  now,  thou  shalt  not 
lose  it  till  the  end,  thou  shalt  and  must  obtain  it  again.  And 
Christ  says  the  same  thing  to  all  the  elect."     Report,  1879,  43. 

This  again  does  not  harmonize  with  the  doctrine  of  conver- 
sion as  stated  in  the  revealed  Word. 

Thus  when  we  consider  rnerely  one  side,  namely  what  is  said 
of  the  elect,  everything  is  full  of  contradiction  to  the  revealed 
Word.  God  would  have  declared  them  saved  without  regard  to 
faith;   He  would  have  predestinated  infallibly  unto  eternal  life  a 


698  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctri^ie,  Etc. 

number  of  men  whom  He  still  viewed  as  sinners,  not  as  believers,, 
hence  not  as  being  justified,  but  as  still  the  children  of  Adam; 
faith  would  not  be  considered  the  receptive  hand,  but  merely  one 
of  the  blessings  which  was  simultaneously  given  to  these  few. 
This  blessing  of  election  would  not  be  obtained  by  Christ;  on  the 
contrary,  God  would  have. bestowed  it  of  His  own  free  and  abso- 
lute will  upon  whomsoever  He  wished;  and  those  thus  favored 
would  be  converted  by  an  irresistible  grace.  All  this  is  Mis- 
sourian  doctrine,  it  is  not  the  scriptural  doctrine. 

Things,  however,  are  far  worse  when  we  come  to  consider 
the  fate  of  the  non-elect.  According  to  Missourian  doctrine  God 
did  not  consider  faith  in  election  as  He  does  in  justification.  The 
difference  which  faith  and  unbelief  produce  between  men  would 
thus  have  been  left  out  of  consideration,  and  yet  God  would  have 
excluded  the  majority  of  men  from  the  very  start  from  that  act  of 
grace  from  which  faith,  justification,  and  preservatioji,  even  salva- 
tion itself  is  said  to  flow,  from  that  act  of  grace  without  which 
everything  else  is  of  no  avail.  Dr.  Walther  indeed  for  some  time 
still  maintained  that  God  passed  these  by  in  election  because  He 
foresaw  their  constant  unbelief.  But  since  he  denies  that  God 
considered  faith  in  the  case  of  the  elect,  he  contradicts  himself,  or 
imputes  to  the  God  of  truth  a  duplicity  which  would  render  any 
man  despicable.  When,  for  instance,  we  inquire:  Why  did  not 
God  elect  Judas?  Dr.  W.  makes  tlie  Scriptures  answer:  Because 
God  foresaw  the  obdurate  unbelief  of  Judas.  And  this  is  perfectly 
correct  and  true.  But  when  we  proceed  to  inquire:  Did  then 
God  foresee,  when  He  elected  Peter,  that  he  would  not  die  in 
unbelief,  but  in  faith?  Dr.  W.  replies:  By  no  means;  for  then  God 
would  have  seen  something  good  in  man,  and  to  say  that  would  be 
gross  Pelagianism!  In  the  election  of  Peter,  therefore,  faith^ 
according  to  Dr.  W.,  was  not  a  necessary  requirement;  but  in  the 
case  of  Judas  faith  was  such  a  requirement,  God  not  electing  him 
because  He  failed  to  find  this  requirement.  God  foresaw  no  faith 
in  Peter  and  yet  elected  him ;  God  foresaw  no  faith  in  Judas  and 
for  this  reason  did  not  elect  him!  It  is  Pelagian  and  heretical, 
our  learned  friends  tell  us,  to  consider  faith  a  foreseen  require- 
ment for  the  election  of  a  person.  And  yet  God  is  said  to  have 
followed  this  Pelagian  and  heretical  rule  in  non-election.  What 
base  hypocrisy  is  here  ascribed  to  God!  If  the  unwashed  guest 
at  the  king's  wedding  feast,  having  on  no  wedding  garment,  had 
seen  a  number  of  other  guests,  likewise  without  wedding  gar- 


Thesis  II.  599 

merits,  but  not  cast  out  like  himself;  if  concerning  himself  the 
command  was  given:  Cast  him  into  outer  darkness,  for  he  has 
no  wedding  garment  on !  while  concerning  the  rest  the  command 
had  been:  Let  them  remain,  for  I  will  give  them  wedding  gar- 
ments! —  would  that  guest  have  been  able  to  believe  that  his 
filthy  dress  was  the  real  cause  of  his  rejection?  And  yet  this  is 
precisely  what  Dr.  W.  asks  us  to  believe  concerning  non-election. 

Whoever  has  not  been  wholly  blinded  by  the  fallacies  of  St. 
Louis,  and  rendered  unfit  to  prove  doctrine,  will  see  at  once  that 
in  this  case  (1)  foreseen  faith  is  not  the  true  cause  of  non-election, 
but  only  a  pretext,  and  (2)  that  in  both  instances  the  absolute  will 
of  God  is  the  one  decisive  factor.  For  God  saw  the  same  unbelief 
in  Peter  and  in  Judas,  according  to  Missourian  teaching;  He 
could  have  passed  Peter  by  with  the  same  right  as  He  did  Judas. 
But  —  He  wanted  to  elect  Peter!  God  saw  in  Judas  an  unbelief 
precisely  like  that  of  Peter;  He  could,  therefore,  have  elected  him 
with  the  same  right  as  He  did  Peter.  But !  This  is  pre- 
cisely the  absolute  election  of  Calvinism,  only  hidden  behind  a 
different  phraseology 

The  younger  fellow  champions  of  Dr.  W.,  however,  under- 
stand that  the  foresight  of  unbelief  avails  nothing  unless  the  fore- 
sight of  faith  is  admitted  for  the  other  side.  They,  therefore, 
simply  say  that  it  is  a  mystery  why  God  did  not  predestinate  all 
men  unto  salvation  and  unto  faith.  They  know  only  this,  that 
God  saw  no  difference  among  men,  that  the  entire  difference  lies 
in  God. 

But  what  is  their  opinion  about  the  non-elect?  Does  God 
desire  to  save  them  all?  Is  it  not  true  that  God  loved  the  whole 
world  and  sent  His  Son  "that  the  world  might  be  saved  through 
Him",  John  3,  16?  This  is  indeed  the  outcome  of  Missourian 
doctrine  —  i.  e.  Missourian  doctrine  of  election.  They  them- 
selves declare  that  the  election  of  only  a  few  unto  salvation  can 
not  be  harmonized  with  the  universal  will  of  grace.  A  mighty 
gulf,  a  deep  abyss,  an  apparent  (?)  contradiction  is  fixed  between 
the  two  propositions:  It  is  God's  will  that  all  men  may  be  saved; 
and:  Few  are  chosen.  The  chief  mystery  is  here,  how  these  two 
doctrines  agree.  But  the  contradiction  between  the  Missourian 
doctrine  of  election  and  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  is  not  only 
apparent,  but  real.  For  Missouri  teaches  that  God  made  a  dis- 
tinction among  men  from  the  very  start.  Some  He  chose  unto 
the  call  and  unto  faith,  and  others  He  did  not  choose  thus ;   some 


600  A  Testimo7iy  Agaiiist  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

He  chose  according  to  the  Lutheran  (?)  rule  of  election  (i.  e, 
according  to  His  absolute  will),  the  rest  He  passed  by  according 
to  the  Pelagian  (?)  rule  of  election  (i.  e.  according  to  a  conditional 
will).  Without  faith  God  will  save  no  man;  this  faith,  however, 
is  said  to  flow  from  election;  unto  this  faith  we  must  be  elected, 
otherwise  we  will  remain  without  it.  Yet  only  a  few  are  thus 
elected;  it  is  evident,  therefore,  that  at  best  only  a  few  can  and 
shall  be  saved.  This  is  Missourian  doctrine,  i.  e.  Missourian  doc- 
trine of  election.  And  this  is  likewise  the  genuine  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  election. 

But  Missourians  do  not  wish  to  be  Calvinists,  because  they 
find  a  further  doctrine  and  a  doctrine  contradicting  the  former  in 
the  Scriptures,  a  doctrine  according  to  which  God  wants  all  men 
to  be  saved,  according  to  which  He  redeemed  them  all,  calls  all 
and  that  seriously  (?),  desires  to  give  faith  to  all,  so  that  the  fault 
will  be  theirs  if  they  remain  in  unbelief  and  fall  into  condemnation. 
This  is  the  revealed  Gospel.  In  this  doctrine  they  admit  that  God 
looked  to  faith,  and  that  faith  constitutes  the  whole  difference; 
here  faith  is  indeed  the  necessary  condition  and  requirement  on 
which  depends  forgiveness  of  sins,  life,  and  salvation.  What  is 
synergism  and  Pelagianism  in  the  doctrine  of  election,  is  here 
the  purest  possible  Lutheranism!  According  to  this  doctrine  all 
men  can  indeed  be  saved,  and  the  greater  number  is  not  saved 
jbecause  of  their  obdurate  unbelief. 

Everybody  can  see  that  these  two  doctrines,  the  Missourian 
doctrine  of  election,  and  the  biblical  doctrine  of  universal  grace, 
which  Missouri  has  not  yet  thrown  overboard,  are  in  direct 
.contradiction  to  each  other.  And  Missouri  itself  admits  that 
they  contradict  each  other  according  to  all  appearances  ■ — not 
merely  as  far  as  our  reason  is  concerned,  but  one  doctrine  of 
Scripture  (?)  contradicts  the  other.  Missouri  teaches  two  totally 
different  counsels  of  God  in  regard  to  salvation,  of  which  one, 
^nd  the  one  wliich  is  alone  efficacious,  extends  only  to  a  small 
minority  of  men.  Missouri  denies  that  the  selection  of  persons 
constitutes  a  part  of  the  one  and  only  counsel  of  God  in  Christ, 
and  teaches  two  counsels  standing  side  by  side,  and  differing 
from  each  other  at  every  point  in  that  the  one  is  conditioned 
throughout  by  the  use  of  the  means  of  grace  and  by  faith,  while 
the  other  is  conditioned  by  nothing  whatever  and  simply  from 
.the  very  start  "guarantees"  everything,  "executes  itself,"  cannot 
be  hindered,  etc. 


Thesis  II.  601 

Thus,  for  instance,  Dr.  W.  declares,  Chicago  Minutes,  p.  50: 
■'"How  can  that  be  called  election  that  God  foresaw  that  certain 
people  would  believe  till  the  end,  and  that,  foreseeing  this,  He 
decreed:  These  shall  be  saved?  If  election  is  to  be  no  more 
than  God's  abiding  by  His  counsel,  that  all  who  beheve  till  the 
end  shall  be  saved,  there  is  no  election  at  all." 

Page  51:  "I  am  saved  for  the  sake  of  Christ  apprehended 
by  faith.  But  where  is  it  written  that  we  are  elected  on  this 
account?"  Let  it  be  noted  that  Dr.  W.  rejects  the  sentence: 
We  are  elected  for  the  sake  of  Christ  apprehended  by  faith. 
What  a  tremendous  difference  is  thus  made  between  eternal 
-election  unto  salvation  and  salvation  as  it  takes  place  in  time! 

Page  47;  Dr.  W.  declares:  "I  beheve  that  there  is  no  analogy 
here  to  justification." 

Analogy  i.  e.  similarity  or  likeness.  There  is  no  similarity 
between  predestination  and  justification!  We,  indeed,  have 
already  seen  and  said  long  ago  that  Missouri  with  its  doctrine 
of  election  has  left  the  revealed  counsel  of  God  entirely;  here 
we  only  wish  to  show  how  openly  they  themselves  declare  this. 
"L.  u.  \y.",  1881,  341,  writes:  "Stop  that  proton  pseudos,  that 
justification  presents  an  analogy  to  election."  Proton  pseudos 
signifies  fundamental  error.  Missouri  declares  it  to  be  a  funda- 
mental error  to  suppose  that  there  is  a  similarity  between  justifi- 
cation and  election.  Yet  justification  is  nothing  but  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  and  where  there  is  forgiveness  there  is  also  life  and 
salvation.  Whomever  God  justifies  He  receives  by  this  very 
act  unto  Hfe  and  salvation;  and  election  is  also  a  reception  and 
predestination  unto  life  and  salvation.  Still  there  is  to  be  no 
analogv  between  the  two!  We  are  not  allowed  to  draw  con- 
clusion from  the  one  for  the  other. 

This  Missourian  counsel  of  election  differs  in  its  very  essence 
from  the  revealed  counsel;  it  has  a  different  foundation,  pertains 
from  the  start  only  to  a  few,  is  carried  out  according  to  an  entirely 
different  rule,  has  altogether  different  results,  and  furnishes  also 
an  altogether  different  consolation.  For  we  read  in  the  Chicago 
Minutes,  p.  56:  "According  to  our  Confession  this  saving  pre- 
destination provides  that  we  remain  in  faith  till  the  end,  and 
this  above  all  things  else  is  the  consolation  it  contains.  It  is  not 
that  we  are  saved  through  faith,  for  then  it  would  be  the  identical 
consolation  which  we  have  in  God's  Word,  in  the  gospel,  in 
Christ's  merit,  in  short  in  all  the  means  of  salvation  and  grace. 


602  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

We  inquire  after  the  special  consolation  which  is  found  in  this 
doctrine  alone."  And  page  41 :  Predestination  is  "a  cause  beside 
other  causes,  as  for  instance  Christ,  God's  grace,  Word,  Baptism, 
Supper,'  which  also  co-operate  as  causes  that  the  elect  may  be 
preserved  till  the  end." 

Dear  Friends !  Yours  is  another  gospel !  In  so  many  words 
you  declare  that  there  is  a  different  consolation  in  predestination 
than  there  is  in  the  gospel,  in  Christ's  merit,  etc.,  that  predestina- 
tion is  a  cause  of  our  salvation  aside  from  Christ,  God's  grace,  etc. 
That  is  a  different  gospel!  But  though  we,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven  (or  Dr.  Walther,  or  Prof.  Pieper)  preach  any  other  gospel 
unto  you  than  that  which  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him 
be  accursed!  Gal.  1,  8.  In  what,  briefly  stated,  does  this  other 
gospel  consist?  Answer:  In  this  that  all  who  believe  or  think 
they  believe  are  deceived  by  the  lie,  that  God  has  determined 
something  especial  concerning  them;  that  repentance  and  faith 
are  not  antecedent  conditions  of  their  election,  but  fruits  thereof; 
that  the  grace  of  election  will  provide  that  nothing  shall  separate 
them  from  grace,  not  even  the  denial  of  Christ  or  perjury.  Evi- 
dently, through  such  sins  they  would  lose  faith,  but  they  shall 
and  must  obtain  it  again,  and  nothing  shall  harm  them  as  far 
as  salvation  is  concerned.  This  is  indeed  "another  gospel."  On 
the  basis  of  such  a  gospel  our  opponents  can  indeed  risk  such 
proceedings  as  we  have  seen  in  the  infamous  accusations,  refuted 
so  often,  yet  constantly  repeated  on  their  part,  namely  that  by 
"election  in  the  wider  sense"  we  mean  an  election  of  all  men. 
Paul  writes  in  Rom.  8:  If  ye  live  according  to  the  flesh,  ye 
shall  die.  But  this  again  is  only  the  revealed  counsel  of  God  — . 
The  great  Missourian  mystery  is  this,  that  God  could  form 
two  entirely  different  counsels  concerning  one  and  the  same 
thing.  And  we  are  "to  believe  both."  If  only  we  could  not 
see  the  connection  between  the  two,  we  would  indeed,  if  we 
found  both  in  the  Scriptures,  believe  both  by  the  grace  of  God. 
But,  to  begin  with,  we  do  not  find  in  the  Scriptures  an  election 
unto  salvation  without  faith  and  unto  faith.  And,  in  the  second 
place,  this  Missourian  notion  contradicts  the  Scriptures  so  directly 
that  it  is  impossible  to  believe  both.  Persevering  faith  is  said  to 
flow  from  election.  Yet  all  are  not  elected.  Consequently  all 
cannot  believe  perseveringly,  cannot  be  saved.  God  would  have 
established  a  certain  grace  said  to  be  absolutely  necessary  for 
attaining  salvation,  from  the  very  start,  only  for  a  few,  excluding 


Thesis  II.  60a 

all  the  rest  without  any  known  reason.  The  universal  counsel 
of  grace,  which  Missouri  still  teaches,  and  by  which  it  imgaines 
to  differ  from  the  Calvinists,  is  in  reality  nothing  but  what  Cal- 
vinists  call  the  voluntas  signi,  the  seeming  will  of  God,  by  which 
He  seems  merciful  toward  all,  and  in  a  certain  sense  is  merciful, 
and  yet  bestows  that  mercy  which  really  saves  from  the  very 
start  only  upon  the  elect.  Ask  an  honest  Missourian  whether 
a  person  is  able  to  believe  perseveringly  by  virtue  of  the  universal 
counsel  alone  and  without  election.  According  to  the  Missourian 
doctrine  that  would  be  utterly  impossible.  The  universal  coun- 
sel, according  to  Missouri,  is  nothing  more  than  God's  of¥er  and 
promise  of  grace  to  all,  that  if  they  would  believe  He  would  save 
them  —  if  they  would  believe  without  the  grace  of  election  from 
which  alone  persevering  faith  flows!  This  is  nothing  different 
from  the  law:  If  we  could  do  the  law,  we  would  indeed  be  saved. 
Missouri  mocks  Christianity  now.  Its  notions  are  Calvinistic 
through  and  through,  yet  it  shields  itself  behind  the  Lutheran 
and  biblical  doctrine  of  the  universality  of  God's  counsel  of  grace, 
by  which,  however,  no  man  was  ever  saved  or  ever  can  be. 

In  the  earlier  part  of  the  controversy  they  have  expressed 
this  openly:  "The  troubled  heart  thinks:  If  God  knows  that  I 
will  be  cast  into  hell,  I  surely  will  be  cast  there,  no  matter  what 
I  may  do.  The  number  of  the  elect  can  not  be  enlarged  or 
decreased.  What  God  foreknows  must  take  place.  If  I  do  not 
belong  to  the  elect,  I  may  hear  God's  Word  ever  so  diligently, 
be  absolved,  go  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  all  in  vain.  What 
does  Luther  reply?  This  is  certainly  so  and  mvist  be  admitted. 
He  invents  no  other  gospel  for  himself;  he  lets  the  sinner  stick 
fast  in  this  truth."     West.   Report,  1879,  33. 

These  terrible  thoughts  of  a  "troubled  heart,"  i.  e.  of  a  true 
Christian  in  great  distress  of  soul,  are  confirmed  by  St.  Louis  — 
not  by  Luther,  as  they  pretend,  but  by  themselves.  Then,  how- 
ever, they  refer  to  the  universal  gracious  will  of  God  as  a  "gen- 
eral medicine."  But  it  does  not  appear  what  they  wish  to  rem- 
edy by  it  in  their  declaration,  "this  is  certainly  so." 

This  shameful  sentence,  however,  really  contains  in  brief 
and  terse  form  the  whole  Missourian  doctrine  of  election.  There 
is  no  possibility  of  helping  the  greater  part  of  mankind;  God 
has  denied  to  them  the  very  first  and  chief  grace  from  which  all 
else  flows,  and  now  all  the  promises  of  the  gospel  are  powerless 
and   fruitless;    though   a  man   should   hear  the   gospel   ever   sO' 


604  A  Testimony  Agamst  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

diligently  and  nse  absolution  and  the  Sacrament,  it  is  all  in  vain! 
Calvinists  say  straight  out  that  God  is  not  in  earnest  in  these 
universal  promises.  Missourians  say  that  God  is  in  earnest,  but 
that  we  may  not  think  that  they  are  too  much  in  earnest,  they 
say  that  God  could  indeed  remove  the  resistance  of  the  non-elect 
just  as  easily  as  He  does  that  of  the  elect,  yet  why  He  does  not 
remove  it  is  a  mystery.  But  it  remains  a  fact,  that  what  Mis- 
sourians call  "the  universal  counsel  of  grace"  has  the  very  same 
effect  as  what  Calvinists  call  the  seeming  will  of  God.  The  power 
which  really  saves  is  placed  on  the  part  of  both  into  the  counsel 
of  election  which  is  said  to  pertain  only  to  a  few.  "L.  u.  W." 
declares  in  clear  words:  "The  Word  of  God  and  the  Confession 
desire  that  a  Christian  derive  every  spiritual  blessing  devolving 
upon  him  in  time  from  the  eternal  election  of  God."  1881,  42. 
It  is  plain  that  this  leaves  nothing  whatever  for  the  "universal 
counsel  of  salvation";  and  this  agrees  perfectly  with  the  above 
utterance:    If  I  do  not  belong  to  the  elect  ...  it  is  all  in  vain! 

The  history  of  this  sentence  is  remarkable.  We  have  often 
confronted  them  with  this  sentence  as  one  that  is  thoroughly 
wicked  and  overthrows  the  whole  gospel.  But  what  of  it? 
Recall  it  in  honesty?  That  is  hard  for  them  to  do,  and  can 
hardly  be  done  inasmuch  as  the  sentence  contains  the  real  kernel 
of  their  doctrine.  Its  only  fault  is  that  it  expressed  the  pretended 
truth  too  clearly.  In  Chicago  they  replied:  "We  do  not  say 
this;  the  Report  has  it:  The  troubled  heart  thinks  so."  It 
can  be  seen  that  they  would  like  to  have  been  rid  of  the  sentence, 
and  attempted  to  hide  themselves  behind  the  introductory  words: 
The  troubled  heart  thinks  thus.  Even  the  chairman,  otherwise 
a  man  of  common  sense,  allowed  himself  to  be  decoyed  and 
answered:  "That  is  one  of  the  quotations  in  a  certain  paper 
('Altes  und  Neues')  which  people  read  and  then  ascribe  to  us." 

But  that  was  a  paltry  evasion;  for  they  themselves  had 
adopted  the  sentence  in  the  words:  "This  is  certainly  so."  When 
wa  attempted  to  show  them  this,  that  same  chairman  inquired: 
"Shall  we  take  this  matter  up  now?"  and  the  Conference  replied: 
"No"  (see  Minutes,  86  and  87)!  Let  it  be  noted  that  by  employ- 
ing false  pretense  they  made  this  sentence  out  to  be  the  thought 
of  a  troubled  heart,  that  is  a  fiery  dart  of  the  evil  one,  and  accused 
us  of  slander  for  ascribing  the  sentence  to  them,  and  then  refused 
to  give  us  an  opportunity  of  refuting  the  false  imputation.  That 
was  tlie  first  disgraceful  act. 


Thesis  II.  605 

Now  a  second  one.  Prof.  Stellhorn  had  confronted  them 
again  (in  iiis  tract)  with  this  sentence.  To  this  "L.  u.  W.",  1881, 
807  and  8,  repHed:  "It  does  not  seem  to  disturb  him  (Stellhorn) 
to  quote  the  words  of  a  troubled  man  ...  as  though  they  were 
our  (Missourian)  doctrine."  "And  this  he  does  even  now,  after 
having  himself  received  the  necessary  correction  in   Chicago." 

The  shameful  procedure  in  Chicago  they  dare  to  describe  as 
a  "necessary  correction,"  and  brand  Prof.  Stellhorn  as  an  incor- 
tigible  perverter  of  the  truth  for  ascribing  this  sentence  again 
to  them  in  spite  of  that  "necessary  correction." 

And  now  the  third  act  which  serves  to  crown  all  the  rest. 
In  his  "Illumination  (.^)  of  Stellhorn's  Tract"  Dr.  Walther  very 
naturally  again  touches  upon  the  unfortunate  sentence,  and  now 
he  proceeds  to  defend  it  as  perfectly  correct!  What  his  friends 
in  his  presence  had  described  as  an  affliction  coming  from  Satan 
now  all  at  once  turns  out  to  be  the  purest  truth!  Whereas  they 
had  accused  us  of  falsification  in  that  we  ascribed  this  sentence 
to  them,  he  now  himself  adopts  the  sentence,  thus  in  more  than 
one  way  abandoning  his  adherents,  —  abandoning  them  mcst 
painfully  in  a  matter  which  he  had  himself  upheld  by  his  silence. 
It  would  appear  then  that  they  had  ascribed  a  sacred  trutli  to 
the  devil,  and  that  they  had  wrongfully  accused  us  of  falsifying; 
the  "necessary  correction"  thus  appears  as  having  been  an  unnec- 
cessary  vilification.  Yet  in  all  these  proceedings  there  is  no 
necessity  for  retracting  anything;  that  would  be  too  much  justice 
towards  an  opponent. 

But  it  is  interesting  to  see  how  Dr.  W.  manages  the  sentence 
now  reinstated.  Naturally,  it  is  difficult  work;  for  the  sentence 
shows  up  strikinly  the  double-faced  Missourian  doctrine  by 
introducing  itseF  in  the  beginning  as  a  troublesome  thought,  a 
troublesome  thought  coming  from  the  devil  himself,  and  finally 
comes  out  as  good  Lutheran  doctrine:  "The  troubled  heart 
thinks  .  .  .  This  is  certainly  so."  Here  is  where  the  "mystery" 
lies;  according  to  the  revealed  gospel  the  sentence  is  a  lie  coming 
from  the  devil;  for  it  makes  election  appear  as  a  naked  muster- 
ing of  men,  carried  out  with  an  iron  necessity,  so  that  he  who 
is  elected  must  be  saved,  and  he  who  is  not  cannot  be  saved  — 
and  "Christ,  God's  grace,  Word,  Baptism,  Supper,"  which  are 
only  "co-operating  causes"  are  all  "of  no  avail."  According  to 
the  revealed  gospel,  we  repeat  it,  this  is  a  lie  of  the  devil,  and 
must  therefore  be  looked  upon  as  a  "troublesome  thought"  when 


606  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine^  Etc. 

it  enters  the  mind  of  a  Christian  —  as  Missouri  preaches  it;  for 
the  "revealed  gospel"  declares:  God  loved  the  world  and  gave 
His  Son  for  it;  but  after  giving  us  His  Son,  shall  He  not  also 
give  us  all  things  freely,  even  also  the  grace  of  election,  if 
this  be  a  special  grace?  The  Son,  therefore,  calls  all  sinners 
unto  Him,  and  He  is  in  earnest  in  calling  thus,  desiring  really 
that  all  men  may  come  to  Him  and  receive  help  from  Him; 
but  that  all  do  not  come  is  the  fault  of  their  own  obdurate  resist- 
ance. Yet  according  to  the  Missourian  proposition  a  man  may 
be  ever  so  diligent  in  hearing  the  Word  of  God,  in  seeking 
absolution  and  the  Lord's  Supper  —  that  indeed  is  all  that  man 
is  able  to  do,  and  Christ  has  promised  through  this  to  help  us  — 
it  is  all  in  vain !  Evidently  this  does  not  agree  —  with  the 
revealed  counsel;  but  as  far  as  the  counsel  of  election  goes? 
Of  course,  that  is  a  different  thing!  According  to  this  counsel 
the  sentence  is  perfectly  true;  this,  you  know,  is  the  contra- 
diction which  the  Scriptures  do  not  solve.  And  thus  the  two 
harmonize  beautifully:  troublesome  thought  emanating  from 
th^^  devil  =:  Lutheran  truth ! 

The  difficulty  encountered  by  Dr.  Walther  is  this,  that  the 
"seeming"'  contradiction  is  expressed  so  strongly.  Let  us  see 
how  he  proceeds!  He  handles  the  sentence  in  pp.  47-51  of  the 
"Illumination." 

He  begins  by  emphasizing  that  God's  foreknowledge  cannot 
err.  Dr.  W.  knows  that  we  do  not  deny  this,  and  therefore  has 
no  cause  to  make  the  vicious  thrust:  "Only  a  fool  will  assert 
this  (that  God  can  err)  who  does  not  believe  in  God's  omniscience 
and  infallibility." 

But  when  he  puts  in  the  sentence:  "Must  not  that  take 
place  of  which  God  foreknows  that  it  will  take  place?"  we  do  not 
at  once  answer  yes;  for  the  doctrine  of  omniscience  proves  only 
that  what  God  foreknows  will  certainly  take  place,  and  not  that 
it  must  take  place.  God  foresaw  also  the  fall.  Did  man  then 
have  to  fall?  Chemnitz,  who  is  Dr.  W.'s  man,  writes:  "The 
infallibility  of  foreknowledge  does  not  annul  the  contingency," 
i.  e.  although  God  foreknew  with  infallible  certainty  that  many 
would  stubbornly  resist  the  Holy  Spirit,  wherefore  also  He  did 
not  elect  them,  yet  it  does  not  follow  thereby  that  they  had  to 
resist  Him  and  that  they  could  not  have  been  saved.  All  men  can 
be  saved,  and  those  who  are  not  saved  prevent  it  themselves,  and 


Thesis  II.  607 

this  is  what  God  foreknows  with  infalhble  certainty.     But  this  is 
of  minor  importance. 

Dr.  W.  now  continues:     "Very  well;  if  now  God  foreknows 
which  are  NOT  the  elect  because  they  die  in  unbelief,  will  then 
and  can  such  people  be  saved  because  they  hear  God's  Word 
diligently,    although    without    faith,    have    themselves    absolved, 
although  without  faith,  come  to  the  Lord's  table,  although  with- 
out faith?     Only  an  unchristian  man,  and  no  Christian,  least  of  all 
a  Lutheran  Christian  would  make  such  an  afihrmation.     Even 
Prof.  Stellhorn  will  not  dare  to  make  it.     For  to  say  that  a  man 
of  whom  God  foresaw  that  he  would  not  believe  in  Christ  to  the 
end,  whom  God  therefore  did  not  receive  among  the  number  of 
the  elect,  to  say  that  such  a  man  will  yet  be  saved,  if  only  he  hear 
the   Word   of   God   diligently,   seek   absolution    and   the    Lord's 
Supper,  although  in  unbelief  (for  only  such  are  here  under  con- 
sideration),  that   assuredly    would   be    the    devil's    gospel,"    etc. 
WHY,  THAT  IS  OUR  DOCTRINE,  as  all  who   know  the 
controversy  will  see  at  a  glance!     "A  man  of  whom  God  foresaw 
that  he  would  not  believe  in  Christ  to  the  end,  whom  God  there- 
fore did  not  receive  among  the  number  of  the  elect."     Evidently, 
this  declares  that  God  did  consider  faith  in  election,  that  faith 
(in  God's  foreknowledge)  was  a  necessary  requirement  for  the 
election  of  a  man,  as  well  as  for  justification,  wherefore  also  God 
did  not  elect  all  those  "of  whom  God  foresaw"  that  they  would 
not  believe  to  the  end.     That  is  pure  Lutheran  doctrine,  and  all 
we  want  is  for  our  opponents  to  acknowledge  it.     But  how  does 
this  agree  with  the   Missourian  doctrine,  that   God  has  chosen 
some  from  among  the  unbelieving  without  regard  to  faith,  and 
chosen  them  unto  faith?     If  God  in  election  saw  all  as  unbeliev- 
ing, how  can  foreseen  unbelief  have  been  the  real  cause  for  not 
electing  the  greater  number?     They  all  must  have  been  just  such 
people  of  whom  He  foresaw  that  (without  election)  they  would 
not  believe:  "of  whom  He  foresaw  that  he  would  not  beHeve  in 
Christ  to  the  end" — that  was  the  very  man  who  needed  an  elec- 
tion unto  faith,  and  now  we  are  told  that  foreseen  unbelief  was 
the  obstacle  to  an  election  unto  faith!     The  Lord  tells  us  that 
He  has  come  to  call  sinners  to  repentance.     How  would  it  agree 
with  this  declaration,  if  some  one  were  to  say  that  the  Lord  does 
not  call  certain  people  unto  repentance  because  they  are  sinners? 
So  here:  our  opponents  say  in  the  first  place  that  God  elected  unto 


608  A  Testimony  Agahist  the  False  Doctrijie,  Etc. 

persevering  faith,  that  is  unbehevers;  then  they  say  that  God  did 
not  elect  the  greater  number  because  He  foresaw  their  unbelief; 
and  again  they  say  for  a  change  that  they  do  not  know  why  God 
"did  not  elect  the  rest"! 

The  interpretation  which  Dr.  W.  gives  the  evil  sentence  under 
consideration  does  therefore  not  agree  with  the  doctrine  of  our 
opponents  on  election,  nor  does  it  agree  with  the  sentence  itself. 
Dr.  W.  is  compelled  to  pervert  his  own  former  words  grossly  to 
remove  their  gross  Calvinistic  sense.  The  sentence  states:  If 
I  do  not  belong  to  the  elect,  everything  is  of  no  avail.  ELEC- 
TION, THEREFORE,  is  the  thing  that  is  lacking;  tor,  that  the 
man  does  not  believe  to  the  end  would  be  of  necessity  the  result 
of  his  having  been  passed  by  in  election,  since  persevering  faith 
can  flow  only  from  election — according  to  the  Calvinistic  Mis- 
sourian  doctrine.  The  interpretation,  however,  speaks  of  God's 
having  foreseen  that  I  would  not  believe  to  the  end,  and  of  His 
not  having  taken  me  into  the  number  of  the  elect  for  this  reason, 
etc.  This  would  turn  things  about  and  make  the  passing  by  in 
election  the  necessary  result  of  foreseen  unbelief.  The  sentence 
speaks  of  hearing  the  Word  ever  so  diligently;  the  interpretation 
states  that  only  such  are  here  considered  as  hear  the  Word  in 
unbelief.  Since  when  is  the  attendance  of  hypocrites  at  church 
described  as  a  diligent  hearing  of  the  Word?  The  sentence  in- 
troduces itself  as  a  troublesome  thought;  the  interpretation,  how- 
ever (namely,  if  I  do  not  believe,  then  everything  is  in  vain),  is 
in  no  sense  a  troublesome  thought,  but  the  simple  scriptural 
truth  which  must  be  preached.  A  Christian  may  indeed  be  trou- 
bled by  the  thought:  Perhaps  God  will  not  keep  me  in  faith. 
But  the  evident  reply,  to  this  is:     "It  is  not  so." 

It  is,  therefore,  a  forced  interpretation  which  Dr.  W.  be- 
stows upon  his  former  utterance.  What  the  sentence  really  states 
is  this,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  works  efficaciously  through  the  Word 
and  Sacrament  only  in  the  elect,  in  such  a  way  that  they  can  be- 
lieve and  be  saved.  That  is  the  general  doctrine  of  Missouri, 
and  that  is  what  this  sentence  declares.  For  this  very  reason  our 
opponents  sought  to  get  rid  of  the  sentence  in  Chicago  and  after- 
wards in  "L.  u.  W.",  and  assuredly  Dr.  W.  would  not  undertake 
to  defend  it,  if  the  fatal  words  had  not  been  appended:  "That 
is  certainly  so." 

But  for  us  another  thing  is  of  importance,  namely  that  he 


Thesis  II.  609 

himself  could  find  no  middle  path  between  the  gross  Calvinistic 
doctrine  clearly  expressed  in  the  sentence  and  the  doctrine  of 
our  dogmaticians.  He  indeed  claims  elsewhere  that  there  is  such 
a  path;  but  whenever  he  attempts  to  outline  it,  he  finds  himself 
either — and  this  for  the  most  part,  for,  since  he  excludes  regard 
to  faith,  there  remains  as  the  rule  for  election  nothing  but  the 
absolute  will  of  God — on  the  Calvinistic  road,  or,  when  he  does 
not  follow  that  line,  in  the  wake  of  our  Lutheran  dogmaticians, 
as  we  have  seen  in  his  attempted  interpretation.  In  fact,  he  con- 
cludes his  entire  explanation  with  an  appeal  to  all  orthodox  dog- 
maticians for  the  immutability  of  election,  whereas  they  all  prove 
this  infallibility,  just  as  we  do,  by  the  fact  that  God's  foresight 
cannot  fail,  while  Missouri  otherwise,  like  the  Calvinists,  founds 
this  inmiutability  on  the  mere  decree  of  the  "free"  divine  will: 
"These  shall  and  must  be  saved,  and  as  surely  as  God  is  God 
they  will  be  saved,  and  besides  these  none  else."     Rpt.  '77,  24. 

If  there  were  nothing  but  this  sentence,  we  might  be  satis- 
fied with  Dr.  W.'s  interpretation.  But  w'hat  troubles  us  is  the 
entire  doctrine  which  has  produced  this  sentence  and  many  others 
like  it.  Missouri  wants  to  substitute  for  the  revealed  gracious 
will  of  God  in  Christ  an  absolute  will  of  God  as  the  rule  in  elec- 
tion; on  this  our  everlasting  salvation  is  to  depend.  Missouri 
pretends  to  let  the  imiversal  will  of  grace  stand  alongside  of  this 
absolute  will.  But  when  we  come  to  look  closely,  we  find  that 
everything  depends  on  this  absolute  election,  and  no  man  can 
be  saved  by  the  universal  will  of  grace  alone.  If  I  do  not  belong 
to  the  elect  .  .  .  everything  is  of  no  avail.  In  the  case  of  the 
majority  of  men,  therefore,  everything  from  the  very  start  is  of 
no  avail.  This  is  a  desperate  doctrine,  and  the  great  mystery  is 
represented  to  be  this,  how  such  a  desperate  doctrine  can  be  har- 
monized with  the  exceedingly  consolatory  voice  of  Christ:  Come 
unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give 
you  rest.  It  is  not  the  will  of  God  that  any  should  be  lost.  This, 
however,  is  no  mystery,  but  an  open  contradictiori. 

Therefore  we  say:  Away  with  non-revealed  mysteries  in 
this  or  in  any  other  doctrine!  If  there  are  real  mysteries,  i.  e. 
real  truths  which  it  has  not  pleased  God  to  reveal  to  us,  then  they 
are  well  taken  care  of  in  God's  hands,  but  they  do  not  belong 
to  Christian  doctrine.  If,  however,  there  are  "mysteries"  which 
directlv  contradict  the  revealed  Word,  then  thev  are  lies  of  the 


610  A   Testiviony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

devil.  It  may  look  very  innocent  for  "L.  u.  W."  to  say:  "God's 
eternal  election  is  the  wonderful  mystery  hovering  over  certain 
persons."  But  what  is  back  of  the  words  comes  out  clearly 
enough  in  another  statement:  "It  has  pleased  God,  as  it  were, 
to  clothe  and  enfold  the  mystery  of  our  election  in  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  and  to  proclaim  and  reveal  it  through  this  preach- 
ing." By  this  statement  Missouri  by  no  means  wishes  to  say 
that  something  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  Gospel  concerning  elec- 
tion itself;  on  the  contrary,  the  statement  means  to  declare:  The 
fact,  that  we,  we  are  elected,  has  been  revealed  to  us  in  the  Gos- 
pel; our  opponents  desire  thereby  to  assert  their  infallible  cer- 
tainty concerning  their  own  personal  election.  Otherwise  the 
"mystery  is,  as  it  were  clothed  and  enfolded  in  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel."  Of  course,  the  absolute  will  of  God  does  not  meet 
us  so  nakedly  and  terribly — it  is  "enfolded"  in  the  universal  prom- 
ises. The  precious  Gospel  is  the  casing  and  the  shell  for  the 
kernel  which  from  the  start  is  meant  only  for  a  few.  So  also  the 
Chicago  Minutes  declare,  p.  85:  "God  desires,  IF  you  are  to 
be  saved,  to  bring  you  unto  salvation  only  by  the  way  of  salva- 
tion." But  how  can  you  discover  WHETHER  "you  are  to  be 
saved"?  Answer:  Hear  the  Gospel;  IF  "you  are  to  be  saved", 
it  will  then  become  clear  to  you;  IF  not,  well,  then  "everything 
is  in  vain."  But  this  is  to  go  on  an  adventure  into  the  Gospel. 
The  Gospel  tells  me  for  the  very  first  thing  THAT  I  am  to  be 
saved,  but,  to  be  sure,  "only  on  the  way  of  the  order  of  salvation." 
And  in  this  the  entire  will  of  God  is  revealed  to  me.  "This  is 
the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  that  whosoever  seeth  the  Son  and 
believeth  on  Him  shall  have  everlasting  life."  This  is  the  will 
of  God,  and  this  is  eternal  and  inmiutable.  In  accord  with  this 
will  God  saves  believers  in  time,  in  accord  with  this  will  He  has 
also  elected  believers  in  eternity.  Besides  this  will  there  is  only 
one  other,  and  this  likewise  a  conditional  will  of  God,  revealed 
in  tlie  Scriptures:  Keep  the  commandment,  and  you  will  live. 
This  condition,  however,  no  man  can  fulfill.  In  its  very  heart, 
however,  this  too  is  nothing  but  the  former  will  of  God:  God 
wants  to  see  a  perfect  righteousness  in  those  whom  He  receives 
unto  salvation.  This  righteousness  we  sinners  cannot  furnish,, 
but  we  find  it  in  Christ  through  faith.  But  a  will  of  God,  accord- 
ing to  which  He  is  said  to  have  received  some  unto  salvation 
without  their  either  having  kept  the  commandments  themselves,. 


Thesis  II.  611 

or  having  become  partakers  of  Christ's  righteousness  through 
faith — such  a  will  contradicts  the  law  as  well  as  the  Gospel.  Our 
opponents  may  continue  to  say  that  God  resolved  at  the  same 
time  to  give  the  elect  faith  and  righteousness.  That  is  only  one 
of  their  subterfuges.  It  does  not  relieve  the  matter.  For  al- 
though God  in  the  perfection  of  His  being  does  not  thus  resolve 
one  thing  after  another,  yet  we,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  can 
know  His  will  only  part  by  part,  and  must  be  careful  to  note  how 
"one  thing  follows  from  and  after  the  other"  (Chemnitz).  Sin 
can  be  followed  only  by  the  judgment  of  condemnation.  As 
long  and  inasmuch  as  God  sees  a  sinner  as  a  sinner,  i.  e.  outside 
of  Christ,  He  cannot  and  will  not  pronounce  that  sinner  saved, 
no  matter  whether  in  His  omniscience  He  has  foreseen  him  as 
a  sinner,  or  (to  speak  humanly)  sees  him  now — as  far  as  God  is 
concerned  this  distinction  does  not  exist;  He  is  the  same  un- 
changeable God,  and  sees  the  same  man  or  the  same  humanity. 
But  if  God  could  predestinate  unto  salvation  "and  unto  faith" 
sinners  as  such,  i.  e.  unbelieving  sinners,  who  were  not  justified 
through  Christ,  and  yet  did  not  predestinate  the  greater  number 
of  them  unto  salvation,  although  He  saw  them  precisely  in  the 
same  condition  as  the  rest,  then  He  would  have  dealt  in  both 
directions  according  to  His  "free"  absolvite  will,  which  is  revealed 
to  us  neither  in  the  law  nor  in  the  Gospel.  Our  opponents  in- 
vent an  altogether  new  will  of  God — and  this  they  call  "mystery" 
and  seek  to  "enfold"  it  in  the  Gospel.  And  this  is  what  we  con- 
tend against.     We  will  not  submit  to  have  the  Gospel  poisoned. 

We  draw  attention  also  to  this  difference:  Missouri  de- 
clares eternal  election  to  be  the  wonderful  mystery  which  "hovers 
over  certain  persons";  our  Confession,  however,  declared  that  it 
pertains  only  to  "the  godly,  beloved  children  of  God."  But  such 
things  make  no  difference  to  Missouri. 

To  be  sure,  reason  raises  many  questions  in  this  article  which 
the  Scriptures  do  not  answer.  When  we  consider  the  fortunes 
of  individuals  or  of  entire  nations,  it  does  not  always  appear  that 
God's  intention  is  to  bring  as  many  people  as  possible  unto  saving 
faith.  But  does  it  therefore  follow  that  He  has  not  this  intention? 
Must  we  not  rather  judge  of  outward  appearances  according  to 
His  Word,  instead  of  vice  versa  limiting  and  fitting  His  clear 
revealed  Word  according  to  outward  appearances?  There  are 
nations  who  have  not  had  the  Gospel  for  centuries,  and  genera- 


612  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

tions  have  been  born  and  have  died  without  hearing  the  name  of 
Jesus.  And  reason  begins  to  inquire,  how  it  can  be  true  that  God 
desires  all  men  to  be  saved,  when  He  does  not  even  give  all  men 
the  means  for  salvation. 

Although  we  can  only  reply,  that  it  is  nevertheless  true,  be- 
cause the  Scriptures  say  so,  that  God  sees  an  obstacle  to  His 
counsel  of  grace,  even  though  we  cannot  see  it,  this  is  answer 
enough.  The  Scriptures  say  more  than  this,  that  God  would 
save  all  men,  they  speak  also  of  the  order  in  which  alone  God 
v>ould  save  men,  and  of  His  judgments  upon  those  who  obsti- 
nately despise  His  order!  Paul  even  speaks  of  special  judgments 
upon  heathen  nations  who  despised  their  natural  knowledge  of 
God.  The  consideration  of  such  nations,  therefore,  furnishes  us 
no  reason  for  doubting  even  a  single  letter  of  the  precious  and 
indispensable  truth  so  dear  to  every  Christian  heart,  that  God 
earnestly  desires  the  salvation  of  all  men  alike.  It  is  true  that 
we  cannot  comprehend  the  individual  judgments  of  God;  yet  in 
general  we  know  the  rule  in  accordance  with  which  God  deals 
with  the  human  race.  Moreover,  the  "gulf"  is  not  between  the 
universal  will  of  grace  and  predestination  which  is  likewise  re- 
vealed, but  between  outward  appearances  and  the  revealed  Word. 
We  see  only  the  superficial  surface  of  the  appearances,  and  can- 
not therefore  judge  them  correctly.  When,  for  instance  "L.  u. 
W."  formerly  declared:  "Experience  also  corroborates  the  fact, 
that  God  does  not  remove  resistance  against  His  Word  in  the 
case  of  many  millions  from  whom  He  could  remove  it  just  as 
easily,"  this  is  more  than  "L.  u.  W."  can  prove.  "Experience" 
is  not  God's  Word;  and  whether  resistance  can  be  removed  just 
as  easily  in  the  case  of  the  one  as  in  the  case  of  the  other  is  some- 
thing which  He  alone  can  by  "experience"  know  whose  work  it 
is  to  remove  resistance — the  Holy  Spirit.  Preachers,  who  are 
merely  His  tools  in  the  work,  have  not  this  experience,  rather  the 
contrary. 

But  our  opponents  boldly  make  statements  of  this  kind,  that 
God  deals  unequally  with  men,  that  He  could  help  all^  that  all 
resist  in  the  same  way,  or  would  resist  in  the  same  way,  if  God 
did  not  anticipate  this  resistance  in  the  case  of  some,  etc.  All  this 
is  then  brought  into  connection  with  election,  and  then  they  are 
surprised  at  the  mysteries! 

Well,  although  we  cannot  and  would  not  answer  the  host  of 


Thesis  II.  613 

questions  they  raise,  we  nevertheless,  thank  God,  know  the  answer 
to  the  chief  question;  the  rule  according  to  which  God  saves  and 
has  resolved  from  eternity  to  save  one  man  and  not  the  other  — 
this  rule  we  know.  It  is  this:  He  that  believes  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believes  not  shall  be  damned. 

He  who  goes  back  of  this  rule  and  asserts  a  separation  or 
division  of  persons  according,  to  a  mere  will  of  God,  certainly 
turns  election  into  a  "mystery"'  —  a  mysterv  which  controverts 
the  entire  revealed  Word. 

Our  opponents  keep  referring  to  Rom.  11,  33,  etc.,  in  proof 
of  their  assertion  that  predestination  is  a  mystery  in  an  especial 
way:  "O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowl- 
edge of  God!  How  unsearchable  are  His  judgments,  and  His 
ways  past  finding  out!  For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the 
Lord?  or  who  hath  been  His  counsellor?  or  who  hath  first  given 
to  Him  and  it  should  be  recompensed  unto  him  again?"  Yet  the 
sense  of  this  passage  is  so  clear  from  the  context  as  also  from  the 
words  themselves  and  from  other  passages  of  the  Scriptures  that 
all  doubt  is  removed.  That  the  "mind  of  the  Lord",  or  the  will 
of  God,  according  to  which  He  elected  some  to  salvation  and  did 
not  elect  others  —  that  this  will  is  not  revealed  even  in  the  Scrip- 
tures is  not  proved  by  this  passage,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  mind 
of  God  cannot  be  known  without  the  Scriptures,  or  in  what  lies 
beyond  them. 

The  entire  passage  from  chapter  nine  to  eleven  treats  of  the 
rejection  of  the  Jewish  people  and  of  the  reception  of  the  Gentiles. 
These  are  the  "judgments"  and  the  "ways"  of  God,  as  Luther 
shows  in  his  sermon  on  Rom.  11,  33.  And  these  judgments  and 
ways  are  "unsearchable"  and  "past  finding  out"  in  the  same  meas- 
ure as  "the  wisdom  and  knowledge"  of  God  are  deep,  i.  e.  unfath- 
omable. The  Jews  had  rejected  the  gospel  from  the  beginning, 
and  at  the  time  Paul  wrote  the  letter  to  the  Romans  the  Christian 
Church  was  already  separated  from  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews 
as  widely  as  our  Lutheran  Church  is  separed  from  popery,  and 
even  wider.  This  made  it  clear  even  to  the  Jews  that  either  the 
Christian  Church  was  false,  or  that  they  themselves  were  no 
longer  the  true  Church.  The  latter  was,  very  naturally,  claimed 
by  Christians.  But  this  is  what  the  Jews  could  not  understand, 
they  could  not  "harmonize"  it  with  the  promises  given  to  their 
nation  of  old.  Aside  from  the  fact,  that  the  cross  of  Christ  was  an 
of¥ense  to  the  Jews  in  any  case,  they  were  furthermore  confirmed 


614  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

in  their  rejection  of  the  gospel  by  the  explicit  declarations  of  the 
prophets  regarding-  a  redemption,  renewal,  and  glorification  of 
Israel  by  the  Messiah,  as  Paul  himself  stated  in  Rom.  11,  26;  and 
now  if  the  gospel  were  true  and  the  Christians  were  right,  Israel 
would  be  rejected  —  the  prophecies  would  thus  be  unfulfilled. 
Their  deductions  from  the  Scriptures,  therefore,  would  not  explain 
this  "experience"  —  they  were  sure  that  this  could  not  be.  Where 
now  were  they  wrong  in  their  deductions?  In  this  that,  being 
filled  with  work-righteousness  and  therefore  not  enlightened  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  they  failed  to  comprehend  the  wisdom  and  knowl- 
edge of  God,  i.  e.  the  counsel  of  God  unto  salvation,  namely  that 
God  acknowledges  as  His  people,  as  the  children  of  Abraham 
only  those  who  have  the  faith  of  Abraham.  They  imagined  that 
the  mere  descent  from  Abraham  and  the  obedience  under  the  law 
made  them  heirs  of  the  promise,  and  therefore  they  'could  not 
comprehend  the  "judgments"  and  "ways"  of  God,  that  they  should 
be  rejected  and  the  Gentiles  accepted.  Against  this  fleshly  imag- 
ination John  the  Baptist,  Christ  Himself,  and  all  the  apostles  found 
it  necessary  to  contend  from  the  beginning.  "Think  not",  says 
John,  "to  say  within  yourselves,  We  have  Abraham  to  our  father: 
for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  chil- 
dren unto  Abraham",  i.  e.  God  can  fulfill  His  promises  even  though 
He  be  unable  to  bring  you  unto  them.  Paul  says  the  same  thing 
right  at  the  beginning  of  the  entire  discussion,  9,  6:  "Not  as 
though  the  Word  of  God  hath  taken  none  effect;  for  they  are 
not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel;  neither  because  they  are  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  are  they  all  children,  but,  In  Isaak  shall  thy 
seed  be  called.  That  is.  They  which  are  the  children  of  the  flesh, 
these  are  not  the  children  of  God:  but  the  children  of  the 
promise  are  counted  for  the  seed."  "Children  of  the  promise", 
i.  e.  who  are  reborn  through  the  promise,  who  believe  in  Christ. 
In  the  same  way  Paul  writes  in  Gal.  3,  6.  7:  "Even  as  Abraham 
believed  God,  and  it  was  accounted  to  him  for  righteousness. 
Know  ye  therefore  that  they  which  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the 
children  of  Abraham." 

This,  then,  is  the  truth  of  God,  incomprehensible  for  reason; 
hence  reason  also  cannot  understand  His  judgments  and  ways, 
since  He  accepts  and  rejects  only  according  to  this  wisdom  and 
knowledge  of  His. 

Concerning  this  the  apostle  continues :  "For  who  hath  known 
the  mind  of  the  Lord",  i.  e.  who  hath  looked  directly  into  His 


Thesis  II.  615 

heart?  "Or  who  hath  been  His  counsellor"  —  so  that  the  '*mind" 
of  God  would  have  been  derived  from  our  wisdom  — ?  "Or  who 
hath  first  given  to  Him  and  it  should  be  recompensed  unto  him 
again"  —  so  that  God  would  owe  us  something,  and  we  might 
from  that  conclude  what  He  has  resolved  concerning  us?  In  all 
these  instances  we  would  not  need  a  revelation  of  the  divine  will, 
such  as  we  now  have,  and  from  which  we  know  that  those  who  are 
of  faith  are  the  children  of  Abraham. 

That  the  passage  referred  to  does  not  treat  of  a  secret  will  of 
election  in  contradistinction  to  the  revealed  will  of  grace  is  fur- 
thermore irrefutably  shown  by  1  Cor.  2,  6-16,  where  the  same 
subject  is  treated  in  the  same  words,  only  more  extensively.  Verse 
7:  "We  speak  the  wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery,  even  the  hidden 
wisdom,  which  God  ordained  before  the  world  unto  our  glory." 
Verse  8:  "Which  none  of  the  princes  of  this  world  knew."  Verse 
10:  "But  God  revealed  them  (the  things  He  had  prepared)  unto 
us  by  His  Spirit."  Verse  11:  "The  things  of  God  knoweth  no 
man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God"  (who  has  revealed  them  to  us).  Verse 
13:  "Which  things  also  we  speak";  verse  14:  "But  the  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God" ;  verse  16 :  "For 
who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  that  he  may  instruct  Him? 
But  we  have  the  mind  of  Christ."  We  all  see  that  the  same  wis- 
dom, mind,  etc.,  is  here  spoken  of  as  in  Rom.  11.  But  it  is  the 
mind  revealed  in  the  Word,  and  not  a  hidden  mystery  of  election. 

All  three  chapters  furthermore  show  that  God  proceeded 
according  to  this  very  rule  in  the  rejection  of  the  Jewish  people: 
He  who  believes  shall  be  saved,  he  who  believes  not  shall  be 
damned. 

Immediately  preceding  the  words  referred  to  in  Rom.,  we 
read,  verse  29 :  "The  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repent- 
ance", i.  e.  God  will  not  become  guilty  of  falsehood  as  far  as  Israel 
is  concerned,  as  they  imagine  that  He  must  become,  if  He  should 
reject  Israel.  —  ("Not  as  though  the  Word  of  God  hath  taken 
none  efifect",  9,  6.)  —  "For  as  ye  in  times  past  have  not  beHeved 
God,  yet  have  now  obtained  mercy  through  their  unbelief;  even 
so  have  these  also  now  not  believed,  that  through  your  mercy 
they  also  may  obtain  mercy."  With  God  there  is  no  respect  of 
persons;  as  long  as  ye  Gentile  Christians  did  not  believe  ye  did 
not  receive  mercy.  Now  things  are  turned  about;  now  the  Jews 
do  not  believe,  therefore  they  now  are  rejected.  Everything  there- 
fore depends  on  faith.     "For  God  hath  concluded  them  all  in 


616  A    Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

unbelief,  that  He  might  have  mercy  upon  all."  And  this  now  is 
the  "hidden  wisdom"  of  God,  that  unbelief  binds  us  before  God, 
i.  e.  renders  us  worthy  of  condemnation,  and  the  mercy  of  God 
alone,  and  no  work  of  our  own,  saves  us.  And  it  was  this  that 
so  offended  the  Jews;  this  they  could  not  comprehend;  and  in 
regard  to  this  the  apostle  bursts  out  in  the  words:  "O  the 
depth"  etc. 

What  is  thus  taught  by  the  immediate  connection  we  find  m 
all  the  three  chapters.  At  the  end  of  the  ninth  chapter,  in  which 
occur  all  those  hard  sayings  (e.  g.  Therefore  hath  He  mercy  on 
whom  He  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  He  will  He  hardeneth  — 
Hath  not  the  Father  power,  etc.),  Paul  himself  raises  the  ques- 
tion: "What  shall  we  say  then?  (what  is  the  real  meaning  of  all  the 
foregoing?)  That  the  Gentiles,  which  followed  not  after  righteous- 
ness, have  attained  to  righteousness,  even  the  righteousness  which 
is  of  faith.  But  Israel,  which  followed  after  the  law  of  righteous- 
ness, hatli  not  attained  to  the  law  of  righteousness.  Wherefore? 
Because  they  sought  it  not  by  faith,  but  as  it  were  by  the  works 
of  the  law."  The  question,  therefore,  is  not,  why  God  did  not 
elect  the  Jews  "unto  faith",  but  why  He  did  not  justify  and  save 
them.  And  this  question  Paul  answers:  Because  they  did  not 
believe.  "For  they,  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness,  and  go- 
ing about  to  establish  their  own  righteousness,  have  not  submitted 
themselves  unto  the  righteousness  of  God",  10,  3,  i.  e.  believe  not. 
"For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one 
that  believeth",  10,  4.  "Whosoever  believeth  on  Him  shall  not 
be  ashamed",  10,  11.  "For  there  is  no  difference  between  the 
Jew  and  the  Greek"  (among  the  Jews,  who  were  then  rejected, 
and  the  Greeks,  who  were  accepted  in  their  stead).  In  how  far 
is  there  no  diflference?  In  so  far  as  both  were  in  altogether  the 
same  condition,  God  however  taking  only  the  Greeks,  and  reject- 
ing the  Jews,  as  Missouri  would  have  it?  Never!  "There  is  no 
difference  between  the  Jew  and  the  Greek:  for  the  same  Lord 
over  all  is  rich  unto  all  that  call  upon  Him.  For  whosoever 
shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved."  God, 
therefore,  makes  no  difference;  He  deals  with  all  according  to 
one  identical  revealed  rule.  If  then  the  Jews  of  that  day  would 
not  believe  (11,  31),  they  were  bound  to  perish;  but  if  they  remain 
not  in  unbelief,  they  will  be  accepted  again  (11,  23).  So  much 
depended  on  faith,  which  St.  Louis  makes  out  to  be  the  work  of 
man! 


Thesis  II.  617 

But  even  then  all  the  Jews  were  not  rejected.  "God  hath  not 
cast  away  His  people  which  He  foreknew"  (11,  2).  What  does 
"foreknow"  mean?  Our  opponents  say:  to  acknowledge,  elect, 
etc.  But  this  is  wrong;  the  Scriptures  have  several  words  really 
signifying  to  elect,  and  use  them  when  they  mean  to  say  "to  elect." 
Even  our  opponents  will  not  claim  that  the  original  signification 
of  "foreknow"  (ginoskein)  is  "elect";  it  is  rather  "to  know",  and 
hence  here  "to  foreknow."  A  strange  meaning  would  result 
if  in  the  above  passage  "foreknow"  signifies  "elect",  or  if  the  word 
"elected"  were  actually  to  stand  in  place  of  "foreknow."  God 
hath  not  cast  away  His  people  which  He  elected,  would  be  saying 
the  same  as:  God  does  not  damn  those  whom  He  saves;  it  would 
be  saying  nothing  at  all,  nor  would  it  fit  into  the  context.  Paul's 
aim,  as  has  been  stated,  is  to  refute  the  objection  of  the  Jews,  that, 
if  the  gospel  were  true,  the  Old  Testament  promises  relating  to 
the  Jews  would  remain  unfulfilled.  And  this  he  refutes,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  by  saying  that  "Israel"  are  not  all  the  descend- 
ants of  Israel,  but  those  who  are  "of  faith,  these  are  the  seed  of 
Abraham."  Gal.  3,  6.  "He  is  not  a  Jew,  wdiich  is  one  outwardly.  .  . 
but  ....  which  is  one  inwardly",  Rom.  2,  28;  8,29.  In  brief: 
those  who  truly  believe  are  "God's  people."  And  this  "His  peo- 
ple", which  He  foreknew,  i.  e.  had  in  mind  from  the  beginning  in 
all  the  promises  (which,  of  course.  He  had  also  elected)  —  the 
promise  is  "given  to  them  that  believe".  Gal.  3,  22  —  this  "people" 
God  hath  not  now  cast  away,  Paul  tells  us ;  God  indeed  keeps  His 
promise.  As  an  example  Paul  mentions  himself;  he  too  had 
been  a  Jew,  and  yet  he  enjoyed  the  grace  of  God.  But  no  matter 
what  is  said  regarding  "foreknow-"  —  this  is  clear:  "His  people" 
=  "believers."  Whether  the  words  are  taken  as  we  take  them: 
God  hath  not  cast  away  His  believers  (also  among  the  Jews) 
which  He  foreknew  (as  such) ;  or  whether  the  words  are  taken  as 
our  opponents  take  them:  Whom  He  predestinated  —  there  is  no 
difference  as  far  as  our  present  object  is  concerned;  the  people 
God  foreknew  and  also  elected  are  none  but  believers. 

This  is  corroborated  by  the  example  of  Elias,  whom  Paul 
mentions.  The  prophet  believed  that  he  alone  of  all  the  prophets, 
and  indeed  of  all  the  godly  people  of  Israel,  remained.  Paul 
gives  the  divine  answer  briefly  in  the  words:  "I  have  reserved 
to  myself  seven  thousand  men  who  have  not  bowed  the  knee 
to  the  image  of  Baal."  These  words  do  not  say  that  God  in 
His  secret  counsel  elected  these  few  unto  faith,  and  therefore 


618  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

by  His  absolute  power  protected  them  from  idolatry;  on  the 
contrary,  they  declare,  that  these  seven  thousand  were  preserved 
from  idolatry  through  the  Word  and  grace  of  God,  and  therefore 
God  also  preserved  them  from  punishment.  The  story  is  found 
in  1  Kings  19,  14-18.  In  verse  14  we  have  the  complaint  of 
Elias  against  the  murderers  of  the  prophets.  In  v.  15-17  the 
divine  threat,  that  these  murderers  shall  perish.  And  then  v. 
18  declares:  "Yet  I  have  left  me  seven  thousand  in  Israel,  all 
the  knees  which  have  not  bowed  unto  Baal."  The  point  of 
comparison  is  this:  Elias  believed  already  in  his  day  that  all 
Israel  had  fallen  away;  but  God  knew  better.  He  knew  even 
the  exact  number  and  the  individual  persons,  so  that  He  could 
preserve  them  from  the  universal  carnage,  that  these  few  godly 
souls  should  not  be  slain,  as  Elias  imagined  had  already  been 
done.  "Even  so  then  at  this  present  time  also  there  is  a  rem- 
nant according  to  the  election  of  grace,"  11,  5.  It  seems  as 
though  the  entire  nation  of  the  Jews  (those  who  were  at  that 
time  unconverted)  is  hardened  and  cast  away.  But  God  knows 
better;  He  still  has  "His  people"  among  them,  whom  He  fore- 
knew and  hence  also  has  not  cast  away;  but  according  to  the 
election  of  grace  —  not  of  works,  v.  6.  This  is  the  destruction 
of  the  rest  of  the  Jews  —  not  indeed  gross  idolatry  of  Baal, 
as  in  the  days  of  Elias,  but  their  inveterate  work-righteousness. 
Here  again  no  secret  rule  of  election  is  given,  there  is  nothing 
but  the  eld  rule  of  the  gospel:  He  who  believes  —  he  who  does 
not  believe. 

Verse  7:  "What  then?"  What  is  the  brief  sum  of  it  all? 
"Israel  hath  not  obtained  that  which  he  seeketh  for."  What 
does  Israel  seek?  Faith?  No;  righteousness.  But  why  does 
not  Israel  obtain  it?  "Because  they  sought  it  not  by  faith,"  9.  32. 
"But  the  election  hath  obtained  it,"  i.  e.  "His  people,"  His  elect, 
"which  are  of  faith,"  Gal.  3,  7,  who  "call  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord,"  Rom.  10,  13. 

In  the  entire  discussion  there  is  no  trace  of  a  secret  election 
unto  faith,  hence  not  a  word  concerning  an  unrevealed  mystery; 
there  is  nothing  but  the  revealed  cotmsel  of  God  in  Christ,  which, 
however,  was  still  hidden  from  the  eyes  of  the  work-righteous 
Jews  through  their  own  fault. 

When  our  opponents  demand  of  us  that  we  interpret  the 
dark  passages  in  chapter  9  by  themselves  and  not  from  the  clear 
passages  following,  they  demand  something  fundamentally  unbib- 


Thesis  II.  619 

lical  and  un-Lutheran.  Hath  any  man  prophecy,  let  us  prophesy 
according  to  the  proportion  of  faith,  Rom.  12.  The  rule  for  inter- 
pretation, which  our  opponents  demand  for  the  protection  of  their 
false  doctrine  of  predestination,  would  be  just  the  thing  for  chili- 
asts  in  their  interpretation  of  Rev.  20.  But  aside  from  this,  none 
of  the  passages  in  Rom.  9  say  in  reality  what  Missouri  attempts 
to  make  them  say.  Thus,  for  instance:  "Therefore  hath  He 
mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  He  will  He 
hcirdeneth,"  in  no  way  indicates  that  a  so-called  "free"  will  of 
election  is  here  meant,  as  opposed  to  the  universal  will  of  grace. 
God's  will  certainly  is  altogether  "free";  He  does  even  "as  He 
wills";  He  has  "power  over  the  clay,  of  the  same  lump  to  make 
one  vessel  unto  honor  and  another  unto  dishonor."  But  let 
our  opponents  furnish  proof  that  in  election  God  did  not  deal 
according  to  His  revealed  will.  Our  Confession,  in  the  very 
article  concerning  election,  interprets  a  number  of  such  passages 
according  to  the  analogy  of  faith. 

Missouri,  in  reality,  is  repeating  the  role  of  Israel  of  old  — 
of  course,  only  in  regard  to  this  cjuestion.  It  finds  it  impossible 
to  "harmonize"  God's  dealing  in  regard  to  the  Jews  (and  in 
regard  to  all  the  non-elect)  with  the  revealed  promises.  This 
was  exactly  what  the  Jews  could  not  do;  the  only  difference 
is  that  Missouri  declares,  "We  believe  both"  (which,  however, 
is  only  delusion;  for,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  case  of  the  notorious 
proposition  above,  they  understand  the  universal  promises  more 
or  less  according  to  the  "mystery)."  The  Jews  pretended  to 
abide  by  the  promises  given  to  their  fathers  (which  likewise  was 
a  delusion;  for  they  misinterpreted  the  promises).  Missouri  will 
not  admit  that  for  time  as  well  as  for  eternity  faith  in  Christ 
"makes  the  difference  between  those  who  are  saved  and  those 
who  are  damned,  between  the  worthy  and  the  unworthy,"  as 
our  Confession  declares.  The  Jews  refused  to  admit  the  same 
thing — it  was  this  that  Paul  showed  them  in  Rom.  9  to  11. 
Missouri  believes  that  God's  "free"  election  made  the  difference 
already  in  eternity,  and  makes  it  also  in  time;  for  election  is 
said  "to  execute  itself."  The  Jews  believed  that  their  descent 
from  Abraham  —  and  this  by  reason  of  "free"  election,  God 
simply  having  selected  Abraham  and  his  descendants  in  prefer- 
ence to  other  nations  —  constituted  the  difference.  Missouri, 
of  course,  admits  that  in  time  faith  makes  a  difference;  but  neither 
did  Israel  deny  that  they  had  been  chosen  unto  the  true  knowl- 


620  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

edge  of  God  and  unto  obedience,  and  that  thereby  they  differed 
from  other  people.  But  in  the  case  of  both  Missouri  and  Israel 
that  which  poduces  the  difference  is  the  "free"  elective  and  com- 
pletely decisive  will  of  God.  That  "faith  makes  the  difference" 
can  be  said  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Missouri  only  in  the 
same  manner  as  we  say  in  justification  that  works  make  the 
difference,  namely,  that  in  them  the  difference  manifests  itself, 
which  as  such  lies  deeper  and  works  itself  out.  In  a  word, 
Missouri  has  a  different  position  for  faith  in  the  counsel  of  God 
than  the  Word  of  God  and  our  Confession. 

"When  of  two  baptized  children  one  is  elected,  and  the 
Other  is  not,  the  difference  works  itself  out  during  the  entire 
life,  so  that  the  one  shall  not  lack,  even  though  it  fall  from  faith 
by  denying  Christ  and  by  perjury,  yet  it  shall  and  must  regain 
its  faith,"  Report,  1877,  43;  Report  1879,  101.  And  the  other 
child?  Well,  that  of  course  remains  under  the  universal  will 
of  grace!  Whoever  denies  that  is  a  Calvinist,  even  Missouri 
declares.  But  what  of  this  universal  will  of  grace?  Oh,  God 
wants  to  save  also  this  other  child,  if  only  it  believe  in  Christ, 
even  Missouri  declares.  Whence  shall  it  obtain  faith?  Answer: 
From  the  Word  and  Sacrament  (here  Missouri  does  not  say: 
From  election!),  and  since  it  is  baptized  it  already  has  faith,  and 
need  only  persevere,  then  it  will  be  saved.  Can  now  this  child 
really  be  saved?  (We  do  not  ask,  whether  it  will  be  saved, 
for  we  are  speaking  of  a  child  which  is  not  elected ;  our  question 
is,  whether  the  child  can  be  saved,  whether  Missouri  still  really 
believes  that  God  prepared  salvation  for  all,  that  all  really  can 
obtain  it.)  Is  the  preservative  power  for  faith  found  in  the 
gospel  as  such  and  as  it  is  preached  to  all?  Answer  of  Missouri: 
The  grace  of  perseverance  must  flow  from  election;  yet  election 
does  not  include  all.  If,  therefore,  I  "do  not  belong  to  the  elect, 
I  may  hear  God's  Word  ever  so  diligently,  seek  absolution  and 
the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  all  of  no  avail  —  this  is  certainly  so." 
This  is  the  only  answer  Missouri  can  give,  in  accord  with  its 
doctrine  of  election;  the  answer  which  in  an  unguarded  hour, 
when  already  it  had  been  privately  admonished,  yet  imagined 
it  could  still  suppress  the  opposition,  it  did  give;  the  answer 
which,  after  being  given,  it  denied  in  Chicago  and  in  "L.  u.  W."; 
the  answer  which  it  finally  again  acknowledged  and  sought  to 
patch  up  with  an  orthodox  interpretation!  And  Rom.  11,  13, 
is  to  serve  as  a  cover  for  the  whole  disgraceful  proceeding. 


Thesis  II.  621 

No,  the  Missourian  "mystery"  is  not  such  an  innocent  thing 
as  some  who  accept  it  still  think,  and  as  its  defenders  especially 
endeavor  to  persuade  us.  P.  Stockhardt  in  "L.  u.  W.",  1881, 
368,  says  plainly,  that  when  he  stated  in  Chicago  that  he  did 
not  know  why  God  had  not  elected  the  rest,  he  "meant  nothing 
but  the  discretio  personarum,"  i.  e.  the  separation  of  persons. 
"Nothing  but"  this  —  just  as  though  this  did  not  include  every- 
thing! This  "discretio  personarum,"  this  difference  between 
Jews  and  Greeks,  which  Paul  rejects,  Rom.  10,  12,  works  itself 
out  in  time  according  to  Missourian  doctrine;  this  difference 
goes  with  us  unto  Baptism,  unto  absolution,  unto  the  Lord's 
Supper;  this  difference  is  "as  it  were  clothed  and  enfolded  in 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel."  To  be  sure,  he  who  does  not 
look  close  will  see  only  the  clothing,  the  outward  folds,  and  will 
think  that  we  are  contending  about  trifles.  But,  thank  God, 
we  know  the  masked  Calvinistic  changeling,  and  want  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  it ;    and  therefore  we  declare :  — 

Election  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  Scriptures  and  is  no  more 
i  mystery  than  any  other  article  of  faith. 

Election  in  itself  is  a  mystery,  and  to  a  certain  extent,  as 
stated,  the  mystery  of  mysteries,  in  so  far  as  it  includes  all  the 
articles  of  faith  and  at  the  same  time  the  "discretio  personarum." 
In  so  far,  however,  as  all  articles,  and  at  the  same  time  the  rule 
according  to  which  God  separated  sinners  from  sinners,  are 
revealed,  in  so  far  election  also  is  revealed,  and  essentially  no 
more  a  mystery  than  the  gospel  in  general.  We  deny  any  mys- 
tery said  to  be  separated  from  the  universal  gospel  by  a  deep 
gulf  or  "abyss,"  for  the  Scriptures  contain  nothing  of  the  kind. 
The  precious  gospel,  which  makes  no  difference  between  "Jews 
and  Greeks,"  inviting  all  unto  Christ  with  the  same  earnestness 
and  power,  has  been  given  us  through  the  unmerited  goodness 
of  God  and  —  we  will  not  forget  ungratefully  • —  through  Mis- 
souri's former  faithful  work.  And  we  have  found  such  a 
wealth  of  consolation  and  refreshing  sweetness  in  this  gospel 
that  we  have  no  hankering  whatever  for  "another"  still  sweeter 
consolation  in  a  mere  decree  of  God,  separted  from  the  gospel 
and  not  to  be  harmonized  with  that  gospel.  Outside  of  the  gospel 
and  "aside"  from  it  is  hell;  Dr.  Luther  often  warns  against  it. 
Our  opponents  indeed  say  that  the  apparent  contradiction  will 
be  solved  in  heaven.  Well,  we  are  ready  to  wait  as  far  as  other 
things  are  concerned,  but  where  the  very  foundation  of  our  sal- 


622  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

vation  is  at  stake  it  is  too  long  for  us  to^  wait  for  heaven;  we 
have  need  now,  even  now  while  we  are  in  the  midst  of  sin  and 
temptation,  of  the  full  consolation  of  the  gospel.  Besides,  it 
would  be  tempting  God  to  wait  for  the  solution  of  a  question 
which  the  Son  of  God  came  into  the  world  to  solve  by  His  Word 
and  work.  "No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time.  The  only  begot- 
ten Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  He  hath  declared 
Him."  Therefore  St.  Paul  writes,  Rom.  10,  6-8:  "But  the  right- 
eousness which  is  of  faith  speaketh  on  this  wise.  Say  not  in  thine 
heart.  Who  shall  ascend  into  heaven"  (to  search  out  the  will 
of  God),  "that  is  to  bring  Christ  down  from  above"  (who  has 
already  come  down,  and  by  His  Word  and  work  revealed  the 
whole  counsel  of  God  to  us,  sealing  it  also  with  signs  and  mir- 
acles, so  that,  to  find  mysteries  in  this  will  now,  would  be  simply 
to  count  the  incarnation  of  God's  Son  as  nothing);  "or  who 
shall  descend  into  the  deep?"  (that  is  down  to  the  dead,  as  though 
the  dead  knew  more  concerning  this  will  of  God  than  we  now 
know)  "that  is,  to  bring  up  Christ  again  from  the  dead"  (to  deny 
that  He  is  risen  from  the  dead  and  that  thereby  He  brought  to 
light  what  awaits  those  who  die  with  Him,  namely  life  and  immor- 
tality). "But  what  saith  it?  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in 
thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart:  that  is,  the  word  of  faith,  which 
we  preach."  In  this  Word,  therefore,  everything  is  open,  light, 
and  clear,  and  there  is  nothing  for  us  to  expect  in  the  line  of 
further  information,  as  far  as  our  election  and  salvation  is  con- 
cerned, immediately  from  God  or  after  death.  Paul  directs  us, 
'not  into  some  mystery,  but  into  the  revealed  Word;  and  then 
at  once  he  continues  and  declares  that  God  makes  no  difference 
between  Jews  and  Greeks,  i.  e.  between  men  and  men,  but  only 
between  believers  and  unbelievers. 

The  source  of  this  faith,  according  to  Paul,  is  not,  as  Mis- 
souri would  have  it,  the  discretio  personarum,  the  selection  of 
some  certain  persons,  but  the  Word  which  is  "nigh  thee":  "So 
then  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  Word  of  God." 
Will  not  Missouri  return  to  the  simplicity  of  Paul,  and  thus  end 
this  lamentable  controversy?  We  cannot  accept  unrevealed 
mysteries.  To  expect  the  power  for  persevering  in  faith  from 
such  a  mystery,  the  mysterious  part  of  which  consists  in  the 
very  fact  of  its  hovering  only  over  a  few,  is  truly  something  alto- 
gether unheard  of  in  the  Lutheran  Church. 

If  this  mystery  does  not  happen  to  hover  also  over  me,  then 


Thesis  II.  623 

I  cannot  (according  to  Missourian  doctrine)  remain  in  faith,  then 
"everything  is  of  no  avail."  And  if  I  am  not  certain  that  it 
hovers  over  me,  then  all  my  life  long  I  must  be  in  doubt  as  to 
whether  I  can  at  all  be  saved.  This  is  what  follows  from  the 
doctrine  of  Missouri  concerning  election,  and  therefore  Missouri 
also  claims  "that  a  Christian  should  be  and  can  be  certain  of 
his  eternal  election  —  unconditionally  certain,  infallibly  certain, 
just  as  I  can  now  know  from  the  Scriptures  whether  I  am  at 
present  in  the  grace  of  God  or  not."  Report,  '79,  56.  "There 
(in  the  Scriptures)  I  behold  God  on  His  seat  and  the  Trinity 
taking  counsel,  and  I  hear  my  name:  This  man  also  shall  enter 
heaven!"  (Genuine  Calvinistic  words!)  "This  is  more  certain 
than  if  my  name  were  recorded,"  p.  54.  We  must  give  Missouri 
credit,  what  it  does  it  does  thoroughly.  And  furthermore:  the 
less  proof  Missouri  has,  the  bolder  and  more  reckless  is  the 
repetition  of  its  bare  assertions,  the  more  presumptuous  its  con- 
demnation of  all  who  dare  gainsay;  for  the  sake  of  this  one  point 
Missouri  has  repeatedly  given  us  to  understand  that  its  oppo- 
nents believe  no  everlasting  life  at  all!  Eternal  life  is  believed 
in  reality  only  by  a  Lutheran,  i.  e.  a  Missourian! 

Our  reply  shall  be  that  we  calmly  investigate  the  matter 
according  to  the  Word  of  God. 

How  do  Missourians  arrive  at  the  certainty  that  they,  even 
they,  are  covered  by  the  mystery?  From  the  Word  of  God,  they 
tell  us.  Very  well!  From  the  Word  of  God  I  can  know  with 
certainty  that  I  have  been  redeemed,  because  that  Word  testifies 
that  all  are  redeemed.  From  the  Word  of  God  I  can  furthermore 
know  that  I  am  even  now  in  the  grace  of  God;  for  that  Word 
declares:  Ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  through  faith.  And  the 
Holy  Ghost  seals  this  knowledge  in  the  hearts  of  believers,  tes- 
tifying to  our  spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.  I  am 
to  examine  myself,  whether  I  have  faith  or  not,  for  this  is'  a 
matter  of  experience:  "Examine  yourselves,  whether  ye  be  in 
the  faith."  2  Cor.  13,  5.  In  this  examination  the  written  Word 
furnishes  the  decisive  criteria;  for  it  describes  true  faith  in  every 
respect,  showing  its  foundation,  which  is  Christ's  merit,  its  effects, 
which  are,  on  the  one  hand,  peace  with  God  in  the  conscience, 
and  the  glad  hope  of  eternal  life,  on  the  other  hand,  heartfelt 
gratitude  toward  God,  love  toward  our  fellow-men,  patience  in 
tribulation,  warfare  against  the  flesh,  etc.  Whether  all  this  is 
found  in  myself,  even  though  it  be  in  great  weakness,  whether 


624  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

T  am  therefore  in  true  faith  and  in  this  faith  have  the  testimony 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  regarding  my  adoption,  this  I  can  and  must 
"know."  And  the  Scriptures  also  tell  me  that  God  desires  to 
keep  me  in  faith;  God  is  faithful,  who  will  not  suffer  you  to  be 
tempted  above  that  ye  are  able;  but  will  with  the  temptation 
also  make  a  way  to  escape,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  bear  it.  No 
creature  is  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God.  No  man 
will  take  my  sheep  out  of  my  hand;    etc. 

These  promises  are  given  to  all  believers,  and  for  this  reason 
every  single  believer  can  be  certain  that  they  apply  also  to  him. 
And  yet  the  Scriptures  teach  very  decidedly  that  all  believers  are 
not  actually  preserved  in  faith;  and  IMissouri  itself  declares: 
"Others,  on  the  other  hand,  are  children  of  God  for  perhaps  forty 
or  fifty  years,  and  then  they  allow  the  devil  to  blind  them,  fall 
away,  and  are  cast  into  hell."  These  promises  must,  therefore, 
include  a  condition.  If  God  had  promised  preservation  in  faith  to 
believers  unconditionally,  and  if  then  many  were  not  preserved, 
God  would  not  be  keeping  His  Word.  The  condition  is  also 
clearly  stated  in  most  passages,  in  others  it  is  only  briefly  indicated, 
and  hence  in  the  rest  it  must  certainly  be  supplied.  Thus  the 
Lord  declares:  Neither  shall  any  man  pluck  my  sheep  out  of 
my  hand;  but  He  adds:  My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  they  fol- 
low me.  Concerning  these  words  John  Brenz  writes:  "Our 
Shepherd  Christ  taught,  that  we  should  not  sin,  and  He  Himself 
also  never  sinned.  Hence  we  are  to  follow  in  His  steps,  that 
we  may  never  sin.  If,  however,  we  have  sinned,  we  must  at  once 
repent  and  return  to  the  Shepherd,  so  that  He  may  not  cease 
acknowledging  us  as  His  sheep;  for  as  far  as  Christ  Himself  is 
concerned  He  keeps,  defends,  and  protects  His  sheep  with  such 
perseverance,  constancy,  and  faithfulness,  that,  as  St.  Paul  writes, 
neither  death  nor  life  can  move  Him  to  reject  and  to  forsake 
them."  On  John  10,  27-28:  "Neither  shall  any  man  pluck 
them  out  of  my  hand,  does  not  say  that  they  themselves  cannot 
fall  away  by  wilful  sins.  In  Rom.  8  Paul  declares  that  no  man 
can  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God;  yet  in  the  same  chapter, 
V.  13,  he  writes:  For  if  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall  die." 
Tuther  writes  on  v.  35:  "If  we  hang  to  this  in  true  faith,  we 
shall  stand  just  as  high,  and  neither  tribulation  nor  distress  nor 
the  devil,  neither  fire  nor  water  nor  any  other  creature  shall  over- 
come us,  the  victory  shall  be  ours.     Only  unbelief  or  the  sin  of 


Thesis    II.  625 

man  himself  may  separate  him  from  the  communion,  grace  of 
God,  Hfe,  and  salvation." 

Furthermore,  when  Paul  writes,  1  Cor.  10,  13 :  God  is  faith- 
ful, he  has  already  stated  in  v.  12:  Let  him  that  thinketh  he 
standeth  take  heed  lest  he  fall;  and  he  does  not  say:  God  makes 
an  end  of  temptation,  so  that  ye  must  bear  it,  but  so  that  ye  may 
be  able  to  bear  it.  Peter  writes  in  his  second  Epistle,  3,  17:  Be- 
ware lest  ye  also,  being  led  away  with  the  error  of  the  wicked,  fall 
from  your  own  steadfastness.  This  "steadfastness"  is  the  unim- 
peachable faithfulness  of  God  and  protection  of  God;  no  man  can 
pluck  us  out  of  this  fortress,  yet  we  can  fall  from  it.  A  Christian, 
therefore,  cannot  go  beyond  this,  that  he  is  certain  of  God's  grace 
at  every  moment,  that  thus  he  is  prepared  to  die  at  any  time,  but 
that  in  regard  to  the  future  he  knows  only  that  God  will  surely 
keep  him,  if  he  does  not  prevent  God  from  doing  so  by  his  own 
wilful  sin.  And  this  is  precisely  the  position  of  our  Confession, 
as  is  shown  by  the  seventh  decree:  "That  the  good  work  which 
God  has  begun  in  them  He  would  strengthen,  increase,  and  sup- 
port to  the  end,  if  they  observe  God's  Word,  pray  diligently,  abide 
in  God's  goodness,  and  faithfully  use  the  gifts  received."  Here 
we  have,  evidently,  an  appended  condition.  God  indeed  knows 
in  whom  the  condition  will  be  fulfilled;  but  do  we?  Does  every 
Christian  know  this  in  advance  concerning  himself?  No!  Our 
certainty  concerning  future  perseverance  is  and  remains  condi- 
tional. Yet  this  certainty  continues  to  grow;  the  more  a  Christian 
masters  the  evil  lust  in  his  heart  through  the  grace  of  God,  the 
greater  his  fear  and  detestation  of  sin,  and  the  stronger  his  long- 
ing for  the  perfection  of  eternal  life,  the  more  certain  will  he  be 
of  final  victory.  Therefore  our  Confession  declares,  §  73 :  "And 
since  the  Holy  Ghost  dwells  in  the  elect,  who  become  believing, 
as  in  His  temple,  and  is  not  inactive  in  them,  but  impels  the  chil- 
dren of  God  to  obedience  to  God's  commands;  believers,  in  like 
manner,  should  not  be  inactive,  and  much  less  resist  the  impulse 
of  God's  Spirit,  but  should  exercise  themselves  in  all  Christian 
virtue,  in  ah  godliness,  modesty,  temperance,  patience,  brotherly 
love,  and  give  all  diligence  to  make  their  calling  and  election 
sure,  in  order  that  the  more  they  experience  the  power  and 
strength  of  the  Spirit  within  them,  they  may  doubt  the  less  con- 
cerning it." 

This  making  sure  is  certainly  the  task  of  our  whole  life,  and 


626  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

our  success  is  that  we  "doubt  the  less  concerning  it,"  in  other 
words  an  increasing  certainty.  Our  opponents  reply  at  this 
point:  If  we  had  a  conditional  certainty,  we  would  have  no  cer- 
tainty at  all.  Very  well!  We  have  already  seen  that  the  ques- 
tion before  us  is  twofold:  1)  Whether  we  can  be  certain  that 
God  desires  to  keep  us.  To  this  we  reply:  Yes,  uncondition- 
ally certain!  2)  Whether  we  can  be  certain  that  we  will  not  pre- 
vent God  from  keeping  us  by  wilful  sins.  To  this  we  reply:  No; 
what  has  happened  to  others  may  also  happen  to  us,  to  our 
opponents  also.  But  if  both  questions  are  taken  together: 
Whether  we  can  be  certain  that  we  will  remain  contant;  then  we 
reply:  Not  unconditionally  certain.  And  we  appeal  to  §  70  of 
our  Confession:  "Therefore  no  one  who  would  be  saved  should 
trouble  or  harass  himself  with  thoughts  concerning  the  secret 
counsel  of  God,  as  to  whether  he  also  is  elected  and  ordained  to- 
eternal  life;  for  with  these  miserable  Satan  is  accustomed  to  at- 
tack and  annoy  godly  hearts.  But  they  should  hear  Christ,  who> 
is  the  Book  of  Life  and  of  God's  eternal  election  of  all  God's  chil- 
dren to  eternal  life;  who  testifies  to  all  men  without  distinction 
that  it  is  God's  will,  that  all  men  who  labor  and  are  heavy  laden 
with  sin  should  come  to  Him,  in  order  that  He  may  give  them 
rest  and  save  them." 

It  is  remakable  how  our  opponents  seek  to  evade  this  sen- 
tence. The  Report  of  '79  treats  properly  concerning  the  cer- 
tainty spoken  of.  And  here  they  have  quoted  the  above  passage 
from  the  Confession  (p.  60  sqq.).  The  ensuing  discussion  then 
begins  by  saying:  "Some  deny  outright  that  a  Christian  can  be- 
come sure  of  his  election."  They  proceed  by  declaring  that  they 
have  already  demonstrated  this  certainty,  feeling,  however,  that 
their  demonstration  is  still  pretty  weak;  for  while  pretending  to 
discuss  how  a  Christian  can  become  sure  of  his  election,  they  evi- 
dently labor  for  some  30  or  40  pages  in  attempting  to  prove  that 
a  Christian  can  be  thus  certain.  But  the  words  above,  taken 
from  the  Confession,  they  have  indeed  in  their  thesis,  but  in  the 
discussion  they  remain  altogether  untouched.  And  this  very 
naturally,  for  the  words  are  clear:  "No  one  who  would  be  saved 
should  trouble  or  harass  himself  with  thoughts  concerning  the 
secret  counsel  of  God,  as  to  whether  he  also  is  elected  and  or- 
dained to  eternal  life."  The  last  clause  states  what  is  meant  by 
the  secret  counsel  of  God,  concerning  which  we  are  not  to  trouble 


Thesis  II.  627 

or  harass  ourselves,  since  it  is  not  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 
Instead  of  thus  troubling  himself,  he  "who  would  be  saved"  is 
directed  to  Christ  who  calls  all  men  without  distinction  unto 
Himself;  accordingly  he  is  to  repent,  believe  His  promise  (which 
repentance  and  faith  the  Holy  Ghost  desires  to  work,  since  we 
cannot  do  this  of  our  own  powers),  implore  God  for  His  grace 
to  remain  steadfast,  which  He  promised  us  in  holy  Baptism  (as- 
suredly then  to  all  the  baptized?);  furthermore,  he  who  would 
be  saved  is  to  be  diligent  in  good  works,  not  to  resist  the  Holy 
Ghost,  etc.  And  the  result  will  be,  that  he  will  doubt  the  less 
concerning  his  final  salvation,  as  we  have  already  heard.  This 
is  the  line  of  thought  in  this  entire  section  of  the  Confession.  In 
brief:  Concern  yourselves  rather  about  the  universal  Gospel, 
about  repentance  and  faith,  prayer  and  good  works.  Then,  as 
Dr.  Luther  well  says,  "predestination  will  come  of  itself."  In 
another  place  Luther  writes:  "On  these  (the  means  of  grace) 
we  are  to  stand  firm,  make  our  boast  of  them,  and  say:  I  am 
baptized,  I  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  I  have  received  the  Sacra- 
ment, etc.  What  do  I  care  whether  I  am  foreknown  or  not." 
Walch  22,  1281.  (In  fact,  this  is  how  Luther  constantly  ex- 
presses himself.  All  the  testimonies,  quoted  by  our  opponents 
from  Luther  in  reference  to  the  certainty  of  salvation,  refer  in 
the  first  instance  to  present  salvation  through  faith,  concerning 
which  Paul  writes,  Rom.  8:  "We  are  saved,  by  hope."  This, 
to  be  sure,  is  essentially  the  same  salvation  which  we  shall  have 
in  the  future;  and  when  a  Christian  says  that  he  is  certain  of  his 
salvation,  he  always  means  this  one  identical  salvation.  But 
when  the  explicit  question  is  raised,  whether  we  can  lose  this 
salvation  or  not,  then  we  must  hold  fast  the  difiference  between 
the  certainty  regarding  the  present  possession  and  that  regard- 
ing the  future  preservation.  And  as  often  as  Luther  takes  up 
this  question,  he  makes  the  difiference.  "All  salvation  is  surely 
there,  but  it  is  uncertain  and  a  subject  for  care  whether  he  will 
be  constant  and  retain  it."  Walch  12,  284.  In  fact,  Luther  de- 
clares most  decidedly  that  we  cannot  and  should  not  be  certain 
of  our  election  (in  the  proper  sense  of  that  word;  he  gives  as  a 
reason,  that  neither  repentance  nor  faith  would  then  be  possible! 
Is  it  possible  that  our  St.  Louis  friends  found  no  such  passages 
in  Luther's  writings?  They  have  always  quoted  passages  in 
which  Luther  speaks  simply  concerning  the  certainty  of  election; 


628  A  Testimony  Agamst  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

as  for  instance  in  the  Catechism:  Where  there  is  forgiveness  of 
sin,  there  is  also  Hfe  and  salvation.  At  times  they  have  even 
omitted  a  few  lines,  which  went  to  show  that  Luther  was  speaking 
of  present  salvation  and  not  of  perseverance!)  But  the  sense  of 
the  paragraph  from  the  Confession  is  sufficiently  clear.  Accord- 
ing to  the  views  of  our  opponents  this  paragraph  would  have  to 
read:  "Therefore,  the  Christian,  who  would  like  to  be  certain, 
whether  he  too  is  elected  and  ordained  unto  eternal  life,  must 
look  into  the  Scriptures;  there  he  sees  God  on  his  seat  and  the 
Trinity  taking  counsel,  and  hears  his  own  name:  This  man  too 
shall  enter  heaven."  This  is  how  the  passage  would  have  to  read; 
but  this  is  not  the  way  it  does  read ! 

How  do  the  Missourians  arrive  at  this  certainty?  Let  us  put 
one  of  them  on  the  witness  stand  and  ply  him  thoroughly  with 
questions!  We  can  take  his  answers,  either  word  for  word,  or 
at  least  their  exact  contents  from  the  writings  of  Missouri. 
Whence  do  you  know  with  unconditional  and  infallible  certainty 
that  you  are  elected? 

From  the  Scriptures;  there  indeed  I  do  not  find  the  names, 
but  the  elect  are  precisely  described.  "If  one  sees  that  he  is  there 
described,  he  knows  with  full  certainty  that  he  is  elected."  Rpt. 
'79,  54. 

But  there  is  one  point  in  the  description,  which  reads:  per- 
severance till  the  end.  This  point  is  very  essential — do  you 
find  this  in  yourself  already? 

No;  but  "I  believe  firmly  and  certainly  that  God  will  keep 
me  in  faith  and  in  sanctification."     Page  73. 

I  believe  the  same  thing;  nevertheless  many  believers  do  not 
persevere. 

That  is  true;  but  there  is  a  certain  number  concerning  which 
"He  has  determined,  these  shall  and  must  be  saved";  these  there- 
fore must  persevere.     1877,  24. 

Let  us  take  it  for  granted  that  you  mean  this  correctly — 
which  is  not  the  case;  for  you  mean  an  absolute  election.  But 
taken  for  granted  that  your  meaning  is  correct — how  do  you 
know  that  you  are  one  of  these? 

This  I  must  "believe."  1879,  66.  He  who  believes  in  Christ, 
loves  Christ,  uses  the  means  of  grace  diligently,  has  in  all  this  clear 
proof  that  God  has  elected  him.     Page  81. 


Thesis  II.  629 

Are  then  all  believers  to  believe  that  they  are  elected,  even 
those  also  who  believe  only  for  a  time? 

Yes;  for  "Paul,  who  speaks  through  the  Spirit  of  God,  calls 
the  whole  congregation  of  Christians  in  Ephesus  elect,  and  re- 
quires of  all  of  them  that  they  shall  believe  that  they  are  elected." 
66. 

Are  then  all  believers  elected — are  there  no  temporary  be- 
lievers? 

O,  there  are  many;  some  are  faithful  for  40  or  50  years  and 
yet  they  are  cast  into  hell.     1877,  60. 

But  can  temporary  believers  believe  that  they  belong  to 
the  elect,  i.  e.  that  they  are  no  temporary  believers? 

This  "we  cannot  say" — we  do  not  know.     80. 

Let  us  pass  the  question  as  to  whether  they  can  believe  this. 
But  there  is  another  difificulty  in  the  matter.  You  say,  they  shall 
believe  this;  are  they  to  believe  a  falsehood? 

Yes;  he  demands  of  them  all  that  they  beheve  it,  "although 
he  knew  well  that  they  were  not  all  true  Christians,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  his  having  been  certain  that  all  of  them  belonged  to  the 
elect.     66. 

That  is  indeed  terrible!  "Paul  who  speaks  through  the 
Spirit  of  God"  "demands  of  them  all  that  they  believe  they  are 
elected,  although  he  knew  well"  that  it  was  not  true!  Friend, 
consider  your  words! 

He  wants  this  to  be  understood  synecdochically,  i.  e.  he  calls 
them  all  elect,  because  there  were  some  elect  among  them,  as 
we  call  a  wheat  field  a  wheat  field  on  account  of  the  wheat  on  it, 
although  there  are  weeds  among  the  wheat.  Paul  speaks  accord- 
ing to  charity,  he  hopes  the  best  of  all.     66  and  70. 

Your  answer  does  not  remove  the  difificulty;  for,  in  the  first 
place,  it  is  something  altogether  dififerent  to  say:  That  is  a  wheat 
field,  although  there  are  some  weeds  in  it;  and  to  demand  that 
the  weeds  be  considered  wheat.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  strange 
that  you  make  such  an  answer  now;  when  Prof.  Stellhorn  in 
Chicago  said  that  we  men  must  look  upon  temporary  believers, 
while  they  continue  to  believe,  as  though  they  belong  to  the  elect 
(Minutes,  21),  you  attacked  us  for  days  as  though  the  assertion 
created  the  greatest  confusion.  (Minutes,  42  sqq.)  How  do  you 
agree  with  yourselves? 

(This  question  finds  no  answer  in  the  "publications.") 


630  A  Testbnony  Against  the  False  Doctrbie^  Etc. 

Furthermore:  "you  say  the  apostle  speaks  synecdochically 
when  he  requires  all  to  believe  that  they  are  elected.  Do  you 
perhaps  speak  synecdochically,  when  you  require  all  to  believe 
that  they  are  redeemed?  Your  entire  doctrine  concerning  elec- 
tion points  in  that  direction. 

No,  no;  that  is  no  synecdoche. 

A  little  while  ago  you  said  that  we  did  not  know  whether  the 
non-elect  are  to  believe  that  they  are  elected.  You  therefore 
consider  it  impossible? 

No. 

Nor  do  I.  On  the  contrary!  Since  unregenerate  man  is 
constantly  inclined  to  error  and  especially  ready  to  deceive  him- 
self as  to  his  own  condition,  I  do  not  see  why  he  should  not  con- 
sider himself  as  belonging  to  the  elect,  especially  when  he  goes 
to  church  and  hears  the  preacher  declaring  that  he  must  believe 
himself  to  be  elected.  Hypocrites  generally  imagine  themselves 
to  be  the  best  of  Christians.  The  Jews  certainly  considered  them- 
selves the  elect.  If  such  now  believe  that  they  are  elected,  they 
are  mistaken,  are  they  not? 

To  be  sure! 

And  we  can  understand  this  mistake  so  much  more  easily 
in  the  case  of  temporary  believers,  as  long  as  they  really  are 
"faithful  children  of  God" — perhaps  for  40  or  50  years;  and  be- 
sides, if  it  is  preached  to  them  that  they  must  consider  themselves 
elected,  it  is  certainly  easy  to  understand  that  they  will  do  so. 

Of  course  it  is. 

Is  not  in  many  cases  spiritual  pride,  i.  e.  boasting  of  many 
experiences,  of  long  continued  faithfulness,  etc.,  the  very  cause 
why  such  old  Christians  fall  away? 

It  may  well  be. 

Would  it  not  be  far  better  then  to  point  these  people,  before 
they  fall,  that  is  from  the  very  beginning  to  Dr.  Luther's  words: 
"Dear  brother,  permit  not  yourself  to  imagine  too  certainly  and 
securely  that  you  stand ;  for  when  you  think  to  stand  most  firmly, 
you  are  perhaps  nearest  to  falling,  and  it  may  be  that  you  will  fall 
so  as  never  to  be  able  again  to  rise."  Walch  12,  1068.  Would 
not  this  be  far  more  necessary  than  to  be  pounding  the  certainty 
of  election  into  their  brains? 

We  dare  not,  on  account  of  abuse,  be  silent  concerning  pure 
doctrine  nor  alter  it.     Page  34  and  in  many  other  places. 


Thesis  II.  631 

It  is  certainly  no  abuse  of  preaching,  when  hearers  believe 
what  you  preach  to  them;  and  it  is  certainly  not  pure  doctrine 
when  you  demand  that  those  who  are  not  elected  are  to  believe 
that  they  are  elected. 

But  one  thing  more.  You  admit  it  to  be  possible  that  some 
of  the  non-elect  believe  themselves  to  be  elected,  and  yet  are  mis- 
taken. You  also  believe  firmly  that  your  are  elected.  Now  how 
■do  you  know  that  you  are  not  one  of  these  who  are  mistaken? 

We  close  the  examination.  Whoever  examines  the  ques- 
tions and  answers  quietly  —  without  fear  of  the  "Praeses"  (Presi- 
dent), nota  bene!  —  will  see  that  this  last  question  had  to  come, 
and  also  that  the  witness  could  not  possibly  answer  it,  and  finally 
that  this  brings  us  back  to  the  very  question  with  which  we  began, 
namely:  Whence  do  you  know  with  unconditional  and  infallible 
■certainty  that  you  are  elected.  He  does  not  know  and  cannot 
know  it  certainly  and  is  not  meant  to  know  it  certainly,  because 
God  has  not  revealed  it.  They  boast  that  this  certainty  of  elec- 
tion removes  all  anxieties  concerning  their  possibly  being  seduced 
or  their  fallnig  away.  If  that  boast  were  well-founded,  their  cer- 
tainty would  have  to  have  a  surer  foundation.  They  attempt  to 
hold  fast  to  a  nail  which  they  must  first  drive  in,  they  set  out  to 
•cross  a  stream  in  a  boat  which  they  must  first  bring  from  the  oppo- 
site bank.  In  addition  they  are  compelled  to  swallow  so  many 
absurdities,  that  we  must  marvel,  yea  pity  them.  It  is  right 
enough  to  say  that  Paul  addresses  whole  congregations  as  being 
all  among  the  elect,  and  that  Paul  without  doubt  in  charity  con- 
sidered them  all  as  being  among  the  elect.  But  to  say  that  every 
single  person  in  the  congregation  thus  addressed  is  to  look  upon 
this  address  of  the  apostle  as  a  divine  revelation  concerning  his 
personal  election,  is  mere  fanaticism.  Paul  exhorts  every  one  to 
examine  himself,  whether  he  is  really  a  Christian.  And  those  who 
are  Christians  he  warns  that  they  may  not  become  secure  and  thus 
fall  away.  It  must  therefore  be  possible  for  them  to  fall.  But 
he  never  exhorts  any  one  to  examine  himself  as  to  whether  he  is 
elected.  All  this  talk  about  the  certainty  of  election  has  no  shadow 
of  foundation  in  the  Scriptures;  it  is  something  altogether  unheard 
of  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  something  unheard  of  even  in  the 
Missouri  Synod  till  just  of  late.  In  the  Reformed  Church  it  has 
had  its  home  from  away  back.  It  belongs  necessarily  to  the  doc- 
trine of  absolute  election.  From  election  all  the  treasures  of 
salvation  are  said  to  flow.     This,  therefore,  must  of  necessity  be 


632  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

the  great  question  for  myself:  Am  T  elected?  —  if  not,  all  else 
is  in  vain.  And  yet,  however  great  the  certainty  of  Missouri,  they 
cannot  deny  that  even  the  elect,  after  standing  for  years  in  faith, 
may  yet  fall  deeply.  Their  certainty  must  therefore  include  also 
this,  that  I  know  I  can  again  fall  into  the  most  abominable  sins, 
nevertheless  I  must  be  again  converted,  as  they  say  explicitly  in 
regard  to  Peter  "and  all  the  elect."  An  elect  person  is  therefore 
to  know  that  the  most  abominable  sins  cannot  hurt  him  as  far  as 
his  salvation  is  concerned.  Evidently,  this  is  preaching  wicked- 
ness, and  it  is  easy  to  see  that  careless  people  will  be  the  first  to 
take  such  preaching  to  heart.  But  in  addition,  our  opponents  say 
that  it  would  be  a  terrible  thought  for  the  Christian,  if  he  had  to 
think:  Possibly  I  may  still  be  lost.  On  the  other  hand,  however, 
they  are  ready  to  admit  this  thought :  Possibly  I  may  again  grieve 
the  Holy  Spirit  by  wilful  sins,  deny  Christ,  ofifend  my  neighbor, 
and  give  the  world  occasion  to  blaspheme  the  name  of  God ;  this 
thought  is  not  so  terrible  to  them.  They  see  not  how  subtly 
the  devil  has  deceived  them  to  exalt  their  love  of  self  above  the 
the  fear  of  God.  We,  of  course,  must  despair  of  making  such 
points  clear  to  them,  since  they  cannot  or  will  not  understand  far 
simpler  things.  Nevertheless,  we  will  let  our  father  Luther  say 
a  brief  word  on  the  subject.     He  takes  up  the  question:  — 

"What  shall  I  do,  when  the  devil  attacks  me  with  predestina- 
tion and  gives  me  no  rest,  saying:  I  hope  in  vain  and  for  naught, 
if  I  am  not  predestinated?  ....  Answer:  To  begin  with,  hold 
fast  to  the  fact,  that  such  thoughts  are  not  of  God.  Therefore  we 
must  drive  the  thought  out  with  all  diligence,  as  one  altogether 
displeasing  to  God.  And  that  such  thoughts  are  not  of  God,  you 
are  to  know  by  this  sign,  all  that  is  of  God  admonishes  and  moves 
us  to  keep  God's  command  and  to  fulfill  His  will;  for  God  does 
and  thinks  and  wants  only  this,  that  His  will  may  be  done.  But 
this  presumptuous  anxiety  on  your  part,  whether  you  are  predes- 
tinated or  not,  He  has  so  little  commanded  and  required  of  you 
that  He  has  even  forbidden  such  anxiety.  Ps.  55,  23,  where  the 
prophet  speaks  thus:  Cast  thy  burden  upon  the  Lord,  and  He 
shall  sustain  thee.  And  Matt.  6,  31.  33,  where  Christ  declares: 
Take  no  thought.  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  His- 
righteousness,  etc." 

"The  devil  also  attacks  you  with  such  useless  and  harmful: 
anxiety  for  no  other  reason,  than  that  you  may  forget  the  com- 
mand of  your  God,  where  He  has  bidden  you  to  hope  and  to  trust 


Thesis  II.  633 

and  that  he  may  draw  you  craftily  toward  your  own  desire  and 
unto  love  of  your  own  self,  so  that  you  may  begin  to  seek  what  is 
your  own.  For  this  is  the  last  and  highest  of  his  weapons  where- 
with to  plague  us,  to  care  for  our  own  love,  so  that  we  may  be 
found  guilty  against  Gods  command.  But  what  would  it  help 
you,  if  you  should  be  troubled  and  surrounded  by  such  thoughts 
till  the  end  of  the  world?  Nothing  whatever  would  be  the  out- 
come whereby  you  might  become  certain  concerning  your  stand- 
ing before  God,  and  He  also  would  not  care  for  you." 

"Therefore  it  is  necessary,  that  you  set  yourself  against  the 
work  and  exertion  of  unwise  people,  and  that  you  deliver  into  the 
eyes  of  the  devil,  who  breathes  such  thoughts  into  your  mind,  thun- 
derous blows  from  the  Scriptures,  and  that  you  hold  them  under 
his  nose.  First  of  all  this  passage,  Ps.  1,  2:  Blessed  is  the  man 
that  hath  delight  in  the  law  of  the  Lord,  and  in  His  law  doth 
meditate  day  and  night.  Of  the  law  of  the  Lord,  he  speaks,  not 
of  his  own  predestination.  And  this  passage  of  the  wise  man 
Sirach,  6,  37:  Consider  constantly  God's  commandments,  and 
remember  always  His  Word;  He  will  make  thy  heart  perfect,  and 
will  give  thee  wisdom,  which  thou  desirest.  Likewise  Moses 
speaks,  Ex.  13,  9,  to  the  people:  And  it  shall  be  for  a  sign  unto 
thee  upon  thine  hand,  and  for  a  memorial  between  thine  eyes, 
that  the  Lord's  law  may  be  in  thy  mouth.  And  in  Matt.  7,  21, 
Christ  declares:  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me.  Lord,  Lord, 
shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth  the  will 
of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  And  many  more  such  pas- 
sages." 

"God  also  wants  and  requires  nothing  of  us  but  that  we  keep 
to  His  will  with  constant  care.  If  we  do  this,  predestination  will 
fulfill  itself,  without  our  care  and  seeking.  This  sedvicer,  how- 
ever, the  devil,  desires  that  first  of  all  you  care  earnestly  for  your- 
self, and  finally  for  God's  commands,  that  thus  you  prefer  your- 
self to  your  God,  and  that  you  love  Him  not  above  all  things,  yea, 
that  you  have  no  God  at  all.  .  .  .  Therefore  you  should  say: 
God  has  not  commanded  this,  but  has  bidden  me  to  hope;   this 

alone  will  I  obey;  the  other,  even  if  I  would,  I  cannot  do 

For  the  evil  one  exerts  himself  to  load  you  down  with  this  anxiety, 
that  you  seek  to  become  certain  concerning  your  predestination, 
or  to  see  a  sign  from  heaven."     Walch  4,  576. 

While  Missouri  vaunts  aloud  that  the  elect  are  uncondition- 
ally certain  of  their  salvation,  even  though  they  should  fall  again 


634  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

into  abominable  sins  —  they  even  shall  and  must  obtain  faith 
again  —  Dr.  Luther  writes  as  follows: 

"In  Rev.  2,  14,  the  Holy  Ghost  rebukes  the  church  at  Per- 
gamos  for  having  false  teachers  and  lewdness  in  its  midst,  and 
declares  in  clear  words:  Which  thing  I  hate.  If  now  God  be 
angry  with  any  one,  that  person  is  not  holy,  acceptable,  etc.-  And 
without  doubt  there  were  both  elect  and  non-elect  among  these." 

"From  these  and  many  other  testimonies  (1  John  3,  7.  8; 
Gal.  5,  19;  Rom.  8,  13;  Ezek.  :53,  13;  Rev.  2,  14)  we  have  always 
and  with  one  accord  tauglit  in  all  churches:  If  a  saint  knowingly 
and  willingly  does  contrary  to  God's  command,  he  is  no  more 
saintly,  but  has  cast  away  true  faith  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  But 
if  he  again  be  converted,  God  keeps  His  merciful  oath,  wherein 
He  declares:  As  I  live,  I  will  not  that  the  sinner  die,  but  that  he 
be  converted  and  remain  living.  Therefore,  God  accepts  this 
converted  person  again  for  Christ's  sake,  enkindles  true  faith  in 
his  heart  by  the  gospel  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  we  are  not  com- 
manded to  search  back  of  this,  whether  we  are  elected,  for  it  is 
enough  that  we  know,  that  he  who  perseveres  finally  in  repentance 
and  faith,  is  certainly  elected  and  saved,  as  Christ  declares:  Blessed 
are  they  that  persevere  to  the  end.  This  instruction  is  clear,  and 
is  not  fruitless  for  those  who  have  fallen,  but  teaches  them  to  think 
highly  of  God's  wrath  and  to  fear,  as  also  it  is  certainly  true  that 
God  is  truly  angry  at  all  sin,  whether  the  elect  or  the  non-elect  fall." 
(According  to  the  doctrine  of  Missouri  the  elect  lose  only  faith; 
but  grace,  the  grace  of  election,  this  sum  of  all  grace,  whence 
everything  flows,  which  provides  that  even  the  loss  of  faith  work 
no  harm,  since  it  must  be  rekindled,  this  grace  remains  for  the 
elect  sinner.  And  very  naturally,  this  grace  was  bestowed  origin- 
ally without  any  regard  to  faith,  hence  it  cannot  possibly  be  lost. 
^'Whether  the  elect  or  the  non-elect  fall",  says  Dr.  Luther,  mean- 
ing: It  is  all  the  same.  But  according  to  Missouri  there  is  all  the 
difference  in  the  world  —  as  great  a  difference  as  there  is  between 
heaven  and  hell.  Salvation  is  awarded  to  the  elect  without  regard 
to  faith ;  it  belongs  to  him  without  faith ;  he  is  far  better  of¥,  even 
when  fallen,  than  the  non-elect  when  they  are  not  yet  fallen.  But 
let  us  hear  Luther  further!)  "Human  reason  invents  an  unequal 
will  of  God,  as  though  God  were  a  tyrant,  having  some  com- 
panions whose  doings  He  permits  Himself  to  be  pleased  with, 
whether  they  be  good  or  not  good"  (Report,  1879,  38:  "Like  as 
a  partial  father,  preferring  one  child  to  the  other,  God  deals  with 


Thesis  II.  635 

lis;  only  He  does  not  even  inquire  whether  we  have  obeyed  or 
not,  but  does  as  He  wills"  —  "whether  it  be  good  or  bad"!),  "while 
He  hates  the  rest,  whatever  they  may  do.  We  are  not  to  think 
thus  of  the  will  of  God.  This  saying  is  eternally  true,  Ps.  5,  6: 
Thou  art  not  a  God  that  hath  pleasure  in  wickedness  or  sin.  For, 
although  He  accepts  the  saints  who  still  have  sin  in  themselves, 
He  does  not  accept  them  without  a  great  ransom ;  Christ  had  to 
become  an  offering,  for  the  sake  of  which  God  accepts  and  spares 
us,  as  long  as  we  remain  in  faith,  and  if  we  are  in  faith."  So  far 
Dr.  Luther.     Walch  10,  1996  sqq. 

According  to  him,  therefore,  we  are  not  bidden  to  go  back 
and  inquire,  whether  we  are  elected,  for  it  is  enough  that  we  know, 
that  whosoever  finally  perseveres  in  repentance  and  faith  is  cer- 
tainly elected.  For  since  God's  will  is  not  unequal,  I  know  that 
the  same  merciful  will  extends  to  me  as  it  did  to  Peter,  Paul,  and 
all  the  elect,  and  does  still;  I  know  that  I  am  to  be  saved  just  as 
well  as  they,  and  that  I  can  be ;  and  this  is  enough  for  me. 

But  Missouri  invents  an  unequal  will,  one  to  apply  to  the 
majority  of  men:  If  they  beUeve,  God  will  save  them;  but  alas! 
He  has  not  resolved  to  give  them  faith;  this  will  saves  no  man. 
The  other:  These  shall  and  must  be  saved;  hence  God  also  gives 
them  constant  faith.  Now  since  everything  depends  on  this  latter 
-unconditional  will,  it  cannot  be  enough  for  Alissouri  to  know  that 
whosoever  finally  perseveres  in  repentance  and  faith  is  certainly 
elected,  but  they  must  go  back  of  this  and  inquire,  whether  they 
are  elected,  i.  e.  whether  they  are  included  in  the  mystery.  As 
long  as  they  do  not  know  this  they  are  bound  to  doubt  whether 
they  will  at  all  be  saved.  For  this  reason  they  press  the  subject 
of  certainty  so  exceedingly.  They  destroy  the  universal  gospel 
for  sinners.  And  therefore  they  must  seek  something  else  for  the 
elect,  and  we  have  seen  in  what  miserable  shape  that  leaves  them. 

Let  us  now  sum  up  briefly  and  try  to  put  the  windy  thing  on 
legs:  — 

1)  The  point  at  issue  is  the  certainty  regarding  an  unre- 
vealed  decree  of  God  concerning  only  individual  persons. 

2)  The  Scriptures  do  not  name  these  persons,  nor  do  they 
describe  them  so  that  they  can  be  distinguished  from  temporary 
believers. 

3)  The  Holy  Spirit  gives  no  testimony  in  this  regard;  the 
testimony  of  the  Spirit  goes  no  farther  than  the  written  Word. 

4}     To  complete  the  misfortune  Missourians  add:    "Faith 


636  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

does  not  give  me  this  certainty"  (Chicago  Minutes,  p.  39) !  What 
then  is  this  certainty?     The  most  disgraceful  fanaticism. 

Missouri  thus  darkens  the  universal  will  of  grace,  placing 
the  chief  consolation,  and  at  bottom  all  consolation,  into  a  mys- 
terious will  of  election;  concerning  this  will,  however,  it  can  fur- 
nish no  certainty  for  the  individual  hearer.  Therefore  we  reject 
their  mystery.  We  know  very  well  that  God  has  reserved  many 
things  for  His  wisdom.  But  election  itself  He  has  revealed  to  us. 
Why  He  did  not  elect  all  men,  why  He  elected  just  these  whom 
He  did  elect,  we  know  from  the  Scriptures  —  Rom.  9  to  11  is  the 
very  passage  which  shows  this  with  the  clearness  of  sunlight; 
this  is  precisely  the  question  which  is  answered  in  the  discussion 
concerning  the  rejection  of  the  Jews. 

In  conclusion  we  append  another  testimony  from  Dr.  Luther, 
rejecting  both;  in  the  first  place,  that  Rom.  11,  33,  speaks  of 
a  mysterious  discretio  personarum;  and  secondly,  that  a  Chris- 
tian is  to  be  and  can  be  unconditionally  certain  of  his  election. 

"These  words  of  Paul  we  do  not  apply  to  the  question  con- 
cerning divine  predestination  as  regards  each  person  individually, 
who  is  to  be  saved  and  who  is  not.  For  as  regards  this  God 
would  have  us  inquire  and  search  out  nothing  whatever.  Where- 
fore also  He  gives  no  special  revelation  in  this  respect,  but 
directs  all  men  to  the  Word  of  the  gospel,  that  they  shall  hear 
it,  and  shall  know  that,  if  they  believe  it,  they  shall  be  saved. 
As  all  the  saints  also  have  comforted  themselves  with  certainty 
regarding  their  election  and  eternal  life  not  by  a  particular  reve- 
lation regarding  their  predestination,  but  through  the  faith  of 
Christ.  Hence  Paul  also  does  not  want  (in  speaking  of  predes- 
tination in  three  chapters  preceding  our  text)  any  one  to  ask  or 
search  out,  whether  he  is  elected  or  not,  but  holds  up  the  gospel 
and  faith  to  all.  As  he  taught  heretofore  that  we  are  saved 
through  the  faith  of  Christ,  and  he  writes  in  Rom.  10,  8.  12.  13: 
The  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart,  etc., 
and  interprets  himself,  saying  that  this  word  is  to  be  proclaimed 
to  all  men,  that  they  all  may  believe;  as  he  says:  The  same 
Lord  over  all  is  rich  unto  all  that  call  upon  Him;  for  whosoever 
shall  cai?  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved." 

"But  he  is  speaking  of  God's  wonderful  government  in  the 
church,  that  those  who  have  the  name  and  fame  of  being  the 
people  of  God  and  the  Church  (as  the  people  of  Israel)  are 
rejected  because  of  their  unbelief,  while  the  others,  who  hitherto 


Thesis  II.  637 

were  not  God's  people  and  were  under  unbelief,  now  that  they 
accept  the  gospel  and  believe  in  Christ,  are  the  true  Church 
before  God  and  are  saved ;  so  that  it  is  solely  the  fault  of  unbelief 
that  the  former  are  rejected.  For  the  grace  of  God  and  mercy 
in  Christ  are  offered  unto  eternal  life,  without  any  merit,  to  those 
who  hitherto  lay  in  unbelief  and  sin,  that  whosoever  will  may 
accept  it  and  believe;  as  he  declares:  God  hath  concluded  them 
all  in  unbelief,  that  He  might  have  mercy  upon  all.  Rom.  1.1, 
32." 

"Now  follows  this  text,  in  which,  filled  with  great  wonder 
in  view  of  God's  government  and  work  in  His  church,  he  begins 
and  exclaims :  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and 
knowledge  of  God!  How  unsearchable  are  His  judgments,  and 
His  ways  past  finding  out!" 

"These  are  the  high  thoughts  and  counsel  of  God,  far  trans- 
cending all  human,  yea,  all  creatures'  sense  and  understanding, 
that  God  pours  out  His  goodness  so  abundantly,  and  in  pure 
grace  and  mercy  elects  the  poor,  the  miserable,  the  unworthy, 
those  who  are  concluded  under  sin,  i.  e.  who  truly  acknowledge 
themselves  worthy  and  guilty  before  God  of  eternal  wrath  and 
condemnation;  that  they  are  to  know,  both  what  He  is.  His  inner 
divine  essence,  and  what  He  has  in  His  heart,  namely  that  He 
will  give  through  His  Son,  to  those  who  believe,  eternal  life  and 
salvation;  but  the  others,  who  are  haughty  and  boast  securely 
of  their  great  gifts,  that  they  are  called  of  God  to  be  His  people 
in  preferen.ce  to  all,  having  special  promises"  —  (Hold  on,  Luther! 
You  are  surely  driving  at  the  Missourians  who  say:  Us,  us,  the 
elect.  He  has  called  "in  preference  to  all,  according  to  the  pur- 
pose of  election";  to  us  He  has  therefore  given  "special  promises," 
namely  that  we  must  persevere,  that  we  must  be  again  converted 
after  grave  lapses  into  sin,  that  we  therefore  absolutely  cannot 
be  lost.  These  would  certainly  be  "special  promises"  —  if  God 
had  given  them  to  all  men,  all  would  be  saved.  But  to  us,  to 
us,  to  us  He  gave  them.  They  of  course  do  not  mean  themselves 
alone,  but  put  them  into  the  mouth  of  all  the  elect;  but  so  much 
the  worse  for  you,  Luther!  For  your  words  show  that  you  reject 
the  language  of  all  "the  elect  children  of  God";  for  consider 
what  your  words  say:  "But  the  others,  who  are  haughty  and 
boast  securely  of  their  great  gifts,  that  they  are  called  of  God  to 
be  His  people  in  preference  to  all,  having  special  promises,  the 
prophets  and  the   fathers."     But  this   is   the  outcome   of  your 


638  A  Testhnony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

"denying  the  mystery,"  having  no  better  knowledge  than  this^ 
that  God  "holds  up  the  gospel  and  faith  to  every  one,"  imag- 
ining that  everything  is  revealed,  attempting  to  harmonize 
everything  with  reason,  denying  also  "that  any  one  should  inquire 
or  search  out  whether  he  is  predestinated  or  not,"  imagining' 
that  it  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  whoever  perseveres  in  repent- 
ance and  faitli  is  certainly  elected  and  saved.  Moreover,  you 
speak  in  a  gross  Pelagian  way,  that  God's  grace  and  mercy  in 
Christ  is  offered  to  all  unto  eternal  life  that  whosoever  will  may 
accept  it  and  believe;  yea,  in  other  places  you  speak  out  grossly 
concerning  man's  "conduct,"  and  you  say  here  that  God  has 
elected  the  poor,  i.  e.,  according  to  your  own  explanation,  those 
"who  consider  themselves  worthy  and  guilty  of  condemnation," 
that  is  those  who  repent,  and  you  keep  on  saying  because  we 
believe,  for  the  sake  of  faith,  on  account  of  faith  God  is  gracious. 
And  if  you  would  say  all  this  only  in  reference  to  the  revealed 
counsel,  it  might  be  allowed  to  pass;  but  unfortunately  you  say 
this  also  in  reference  to  eternal  election!  Or  do  you  intend  to 
deny  it,  Luther?  Look,  here  are  your  own  words  —  found  in 
your  epistolary  sermon  for  the  5th  Sunday  after  Epiphany  — 
"They,  however,  (the  work-righteous)  are  holy  in  their  own  eyes; 
hence  they  always  remain  godless  and  sinners  before  God.  So 
also  we  are  loved  of  God  because  we  hate,  judge,  and  condemn 
ourselves  and  let  our  own  love  go;  but  they  are  dear  and 
precious  to  themselves,  therefore  they  are  hated  and  unacceptable 
before  God.  Again,  we  are  elected  before  God,  because  we 
reject  and  despise  ourselves  as  filth.  For  such  He  elects  and 
has  elected  from  eternity.  But  because  they  elect  themselves," — 
are  you  driving  at  Missouri  again,  Luther?  • — -  "they  must  be 
rejected  of  God,  as  He  has  rejected  even  such  from  eternity." 
Luther,  Luther!  Missourians  have  had  enough  patience  with 
you.  We  would  like  to  keep  on  covering  up  your  "naevi,"  your 
failings,  with  the  mantle  of  charity!  But  these  miserable  oppo- 
nents of  Missouri  appear  to  have  kept  you  back  till  the  last  as 
their  best  champion;  they  say  that  they  find  a  great  deal  of 
this  kind  in  your  writings.  If  this  is  true,  and  if  they  bring  all 
this  forward,  then,  for  the  sake  of  the  mystery,  Missouri  must 
turn  also  against  you.  They  must  remain  true  to  their  call; 
God  intends  to  reform  His  church  through  them;  and  as  you 
yourself  in  your  own  Reformation  did  not  heed  the  cry  of  the 
papists:   "Fathers,  fathers!"  you  will  hardly  dare  complain,  when 


Thesis  II.  639 

Missouri,  of  course  only  in  the  extreme  hour  of  need,  numbers 
you  among-  the  "fathers."  You  can  be  thankful  for  this  to  us. 
Nevertheless  we  will  proceed  to  hear  you  out  on  Rom.  11,  33.) 

"The  others,  however,  who  are  haughty  and  boast  securely 
of  their  great  gifts,  that  God  has  called  them  to  be  His  people 
hi  preference  to  all,  having  special  promises,  prophets,  and 
fathers,  etc.;  who  imagine  that  God  can  and  will  acknowledge 
no  other  people  on  earth  than  themselves  as  His  people  and 
church  —  these  He  rejects  and  condemns  because  of  their  unbe- 
lief, wherein  haug-htiness  and  a  fond  conceit  of  their  own  wisdom 
and  sanctity  keeps  them." 

"That  is  certainly  a  rich,  unspeakable,  divine  wisdom  and 
knowledge,  which  those  alone  have  who  believe  in  Christ,  that 
they  can  look  into  the  great  depth  and  behold  what  is  the  mind 
and  meaning  of  the  divine  heart"  (here  Luther  again  refers  to 
the  revealed  "mind"  of  God,  while  St.  Louis  clearly  refers  it 
to  an  unrevealed  mind);  "although  in  their  weakness  they  can- 
not reach  it  perfectly,  nor  comprehend  it  further  than  they  are 
able  to  comprehend  in  faith  of  the  revealed  Word,  as  in  a  mirror 
and  picture  (as  St.  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  13,  2),  while  to  blind  unbe- 
lieving reason  everything  remains  foreign  and  hidden,  and  noth- 
ing whatever  enters  into  their  minds  and  thoughts;  in  fact,  this 
reason  does  not  want  to  hear  or  know  even  when  these  things 
are  revealed  unto  it." 

"St.  Paul  saw  and  experienced,  how  especially  the  proud 
Jewish  people  opposed  obdurately  and  with  stififneckedness  this 
preaching  of  the  gospel,  so  that  he  himself  marveled  and  said: 
What  shall  I  say?  I  see  indeed  that  this  is  nothing  but  the 
deep,  unfathomable  wisdom  of  God,  and  His  judgments  past 
finding  out  and  His  unsearchable  ways.  As  also  He  says  in 
another  place:  But  we  speak  the  wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery, 
even  the  hidden  wisdom,  which  God  ordained  before  the  world 
unto  our  glory,  which  none  of  the  princes  of  this  world  knew. 
1  Cor.  2,  7.  8."     So  far  Dr.  Luther.     W.  12,  839. 

This  interpretation  of  Rom.  11,  33,  on  the  part  of  Luther 
conflicts  in  no  way  with  what  our  Confession  says  in  reference 
to  the  passage,  namely  that  we  cannot  know  God's  judgments 
without  and  aside  from  the  revelations  of  God's  Word.  The 
simple  sense  of  the  passage  is  undoubtedly  the  one  Luther  has 
found  therein.  From  this  follows  neccessarily  what  our  Con- 
fession has  taken  from  the  passage,  namely  that  our  knowledge 


640  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine^  Etc. 

does  not  go  beyond  God's  revelation.  Whatever  lies  beyond  we 
Christians  cannot  know.  And  the  Confession  proceeds  at  once 
to  enumerate  what  these  unrevealed  things  are;  namely  1)  "who 
of  those  who  are  called  will  believe  or  will  not  believe;  also 
who  of  the  converted  will  persevere  and  who  will  not;  who  after 
a  fall  will  return,  and  who  will  fall  into  obduracy.  So,  too,  the 
number,  how  many  there  are  of  these  on  both  sides,  is  beyond 
all  doubt  known  to  God."  2)  The  time  and  the  hour  of  the 
call  and  conversion,  which  God  has  fixed  for  each.  3)  The 
judgments  of  God  concerning  individual  persons  and  nations. 

But  that  God  should  have  hidden  the  very  chief  thing  from 
us,  namely  why  He  has  elected  only  a  few  to  salvation,  that 
the  cause  of  this  lies  in  a  secret  will  of  God,  that  at  least  He 
did  not  act  according  to  the  revealed  rule  in  this  matter:  He 
that  believes  shall  be  saved;  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned  —  putting  the  whole  Word  of  God  into  doubt  —  that 
this  properly  constitutes  the  mystery  of  election,  and  that  Paul 
speaks  of  this  in  Rom.  11;  concerning  all  this  our  Confession 
says  not  a  single  word.  On  the  contrary  it  sets  up  as  the  rule 
of  election:  That  God  "in  His  eternal  divine  counsel  determined 
to  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowledge  His  Son  Christ 
and  truly  believe  on  Him." 

Dr.  W^alther  (Chicago  Min.,  p.  47)  simply  says  on  this: 
*'I  do  not  acknowledge  it,  when  they  take  this  as  the  rule  of 
election."  But  what,  then,  does  the  Confession  mean  with  this 
sentence?  Where  does  this  decree  belong?  Before  election? 
Then  evidently  it  would  be  the  rule.  This  is  what  Missouri  will 
not  have.  After  election  then?  Then  the  whole  would  mean: 
God,  to  begin  with,  chose  a  certain  number,  to  whom  He  deter- 
mined to  give  grace,  that  they  should  acknowledge  His  Son 
Christ  and  truly  believe  on  Him,  and  no  one  but  these  will 
He  now  save.  Then  the  rest  would  not  only  not  be  elected, 
but  would  also  be  excluded  from  salvation  by  a  definite  decree. 
And  we  have  always  understood  the  doctrine  of  Missouri  in 
this  way.  But  they  claim  that  this  is  not  their  meaning;  in  the 
election  of  the  elect,  they  say,  nothing  has  been  determined  con- 
cerning the  rest;  these  would  still  remain  under  the  "universal 
counsel  of  grace."  This  is  very  evidently  a  useless  evasion.  In 
the  election  of  the  elect  it  was  at  least  determined  concerning 
the  rest  that  they  are  not  elected,  that  the  fountain  whence  every- 
thing must  "flow"  does  not  flow  for  them.     Our  opponents  deal 


Thesis  II.  641 

altogether  with  fallacious  deductions.  If  a  man  determines  to 
rescue  twenty  out  of  a  hundred  wrecked  passengers,  we  can  of 
course  say,  the  rescue  of  these  twenty  is  not  the  cause  of  the 
destruction  of  the  rest;  but  every  reasonable  man  will  see  that 
the  selection  of  those  who  are  to  be  saved  settles  the  fate  of 
the  rest.  Thus  our  opponents  say  that  the  election  of  God  is 
not  the  cause  of  the  destruction  of  the  rest.  Of  course  not! 
But  their  eternal  fate  is  thereby  sealed.  For  without  election 
no  persevering  faith,  is  the  teaching  of  Missouri;  without  per- 
severing faith  no  salvation,  is  the  teaching  of  Scripture.  As 
soon,  therefore,  as  God  chose  the  persons  whom  He  intended 
to  save,  that  soon  the  adverse  judgment  was  passed  regarding 
the  rest.  It  is  indeed  perfectly  correct,  if  it  be  admitted,  that 
God  looked  for  faith  in  election;  for  then  only  those  are  not 
elected,  but  rejected,  v^'ho  in  spite  of  all  God's  grace  do  not 
believe.  But  our  opponents  place  election  prior  to  the  regard 
of  faith;  they  teach  an  election  unto  faith,  and  then,  to  cover 
up  this  Calvinism,  they  pretend  that  this  election  decides  nothing 
concerning  the  rest.  But  our  Confession  blocks  this  evasion, 
it  puts  in  place  of  it  a  definite  eternal  decree  of  God:  That  He 
determined  to  save  no  one  except  those  who  believe  on  Christ 
(but  according  to  Missouri  these  would  be  the  ones  already 
numbered  and  set  aside  by  the  election  unto  faith).  The  mean- 
ing would  therefore  be:  These  I  have  elected  unto  faith;  they 
now  shall  and  must  believe,  and  besides  these  I  will  save  no 
one.  In  how  far  then  would  the  rest  still  be  under  the  universal 
counsel  of  grace? 

But  the  clear  words  of  the  Confession  establish  beyond  a 
doubt  that  this  decree  of  God  gives  the  rule  according  to  which 
God  separated  the  persons.  This  is  made  more  certain  still  by 
the  preceding  paragraph,  v/hich  gives  the  cause  why  only  so 
few  are  chosen  —  our  Confession  solves  the  mystery:  — 

"That,  however,  many  are  called,  few  are  chosen,  does  not 
mean  that  God  is  unwilling  that  all  should  be  saved,  but  the 
reason  is  that  they  either  do  not  all  hear  God's  Word,  but  wilfully 
despise  it,  close  their  ears  and  harden  their  hearts,  and  in  this 
manner  foreclose  the  ordinary  way  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that 
He  cannot  effect  His  work  in  them,  or,  when  it  is  heard,  they 
consider  it  of  no  account,  and  do  not  heed  it.  For  this  not  God 
or  His  election,  but  their  wickedness,  is  responsible."  These 
are  the  words  of  our  Confession!     Where  is  the  mystery  in  them? 


642  A   Testhno7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

The  Holy  Ghost  cannot  effect  His  work  in  them,  i.  e.  cannot 
give  them  faith  or  keep  them  in  faith,  because  they  foreclose 
the  ordinary  way  to  Him,  harden  their  hearts  by  wilfully  despis- 
ing the  Word;  and  this  is  the  reason,  why  God  did  not  elect 
them;  for  "He  determined  to  save  no  one  except  those  who 
truly  believe  on  Christ." 

This  word  especially,  that  God  can  not  effect  His  work 
in  them,  is  treated  with  special  hostility  by  our  opponents. 
Whereas  Dr.  W.  himself,  in  earlier  and  better  days,  often  used 
similar  strong  language  (compare  his  Postille,  p.  53,  column  2: 
"One  cause,"  etc.;  p.  91,  c.  2:  "God  Himself  cannot  help  him," 
etc.;  p.  92,  c.  2:  "On  the  contrary,  that  for  this  very  reason  God 
could  not  elect  many";  p.  93,  c.  2:  "because  He  foresaw  that  they 
would  not  believe  and  be  converted";  p.  325,  c.  2:  "WHiat  now 
can,  what  shall,  what  must  God  do  with  such  people?");  whereas, 
therefore,  he  had  hitherto  spoken  precisely  like  our  Confession,, 
he  now  reviles  us  most  bitterly,  when  we  use  the  same  words. 
Thus  he  writes  in  the  "Illumination,"  p.  40:  "The  fact,  that  God 
does  not  give  the  gift  of  faith  to  all  men,  is  due,  according  to 
Prof.  Stellhorn's  reason,  simply  to  this,  that  God  could  not  give 
it  to  all."  Page  39:  "On  pages  12  and  13  Prof.  Stellhorn  takes 
the  great  and  majestic  God  to  task  in  a  way  that  simply  raises 
the  hair  of  a  god-fearing  reader.  Like  an  arch-rationalist  he 
determines  precisely  what  God  could  have  done,  and  what  He 
■could  not  have  done."  And  we  must  not  forget  that  Prof.  Stell- 
horn nowhere  states  absolutely  that  God  could  not  convert  and 
save  all,  but  that  He  could  not  do  this  within  the  order  which 
God  had  Himself  established,  etc. ;  as  though  I  were  to  say,  God 
has  established  the  order  not  to  save  any  one  except  he  believe 
in  Christ,  and  not  to  convert  any  one  except  he  do  not  despise 
His  Word  wilfully.  For  this  reason  God  now  cannot  (if  He 
would  abide  by  His  order)  convert  those  who  despise  nor  save 
those  who  remain  unbelievers.  Prof.  Stellhorn  fixed  no  bounds 
for  God's  ability,  remaining  himself  within  the  bounds  fixed  and 
revealed  by  God.  Whether  God  could  not,  if  He  would  depart 
from  His  order,  convert  and  save  all  —  he  did  not  say,  and  the 
Confession  does  not  say,  but  speaks  only  of  the  regular  way 
which  they  foreclose  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  Dr.  W.  himself 
had  absolutely  denied  in  his  Postille  that  God  could  convert 
those  who  resist  wilfully;  for  on  p.  91  he  writes:  "God  does 
not  want  to  force  any  one  unto  repentance;  a  forced  conversion 


Thesis  II.  64a 

is  no  conversion";  and  what  he  means  by  this  is  shown  on  p, 
325:  "Shall  He  tie  the  hands  and  feet  of  those  who  resist,  drag^ 
them  to  the  heavenly  table  of  His  grace,  and  force  them  with 
violence  to  see  and  to  taste  His  goodness?  Shall  God  Himself 
rend  to  pieces  the  law  of  His  hoUness,  which  He  has  given  to 
all  rational  creatures,  and  cast  it  under  the  feet  of  man  to  be 
forever  trampled  upon  and  disgraced?  Shall  God  cease  to  be 
righteous,  and  thus  cease  to  be  God,  that  man  may  remain  in 
sin  and  yet  be  able  to  be  saved?  Yea,  shall  God  make  Himself 
an  object  of  the  everlasting  scorn  and  mockery  of  men,  that 
men  may  eternally  make  sport  of  His  weakness?  " 

This  evidently  means  to  say  that  God  absolutely  cannot 
convert  those  who  obdurately  resist;  they  would  remain  uncon- 
verted even  in  heaven  and  make  sport  of  Him.  And  God  Him- 
self would  have  to  destroy  the  law  of  His  holiness,  would  have 
to  cease  being  God,  if  He  would  take  these  into  heaven.  But 
that  is  alDsolutely  impossible,  hence  it  is  also  absolutely  impossible 
for  Him  to  elect  them. 

But  this  is  saying  in  the  strongest  possible  way  that  God 
found  no  such  resistance  in  the  elect,  and  thus  all  Calvinism 
is  completely  shut  out.  Having  such  strong  declarations,  we 
felt  compelled  to  explain  the  utterances  on  pp.  03  and  94  in 
an  orthodox  way,  namely  that  repentance  and  faith  flow  from 
election.  They  could  be  understood  as  meaning  that  God  fore- 
saw which  He  would  be  able  to  convert,  and  these  then  He 
elected  unto  conversion  and  salvation;  not  because  He  saw 
something  good  in  them,  but  because  He  greatly  desired  to  save 
all  of  His  grace  for  Christ's  sake;  wherefore  He  elected  all  there- 
unto whom  He  could  save,  without  "rending  to  pieces  the  law 
of  His  holiness." 

Page  94  shows  that  this  is  what  is  really  meant:  "You, 
now,  who  remain  in  your  sins  and  will  not  turn  yourselves  heartily 
to  Christ,  dare  not  imagine  that  you  can  excuse  yourselves  by 
saying  that  God  would  not  grant  you  the  grace  of  conversion 
and  salvation.  No;  God  greatly  desires  to  save  you,  if  only  you 
would  permit  yourselves  to  be  saved.  Christ  declares:  Him 
that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out.  This  word  applies 
also  to  you.  Only  recognize  your  misery  and  go  to  Christ,  and 
He  will  in  no  wise  cast  you  out,  and  then  you  can  confess  with 
joy  and  gladness:     God  has  chosen  me  also  from  eternity  unto 


644  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

salvation.  But  if  you  will  not  do  this — then  do  not  accuse  God, 
but  call  down  woe  upon  yourselves,  for  then  Christ  declares  con- 
cerning you:  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  you  together, 
even  as  a_hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye 
would  not.  For  those  whom  God  has  chosen,  He  has  chosen  not 
merely  unto  salvation,  but  also  unto  repentance  and  sanctifica- 
tion,  as  St.  Paul  sets  before  us  the  indestructible  golden  chain  of 
salvation:  Whom  He  did  foreknow  He  also  did  predestinate 
to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son;  moreover,  whom  He 
did  predestinate  them  He  also  called;  and  whom  He  called  them 
He  also  justified;  and  whom  He  justified  them  He  also  glorified. 
Whoever,  therefore,  will  not  permit  himself  to  be  conformed  to 
the  image  of  God's  Son  need  not  be  surprised  to  find  that  the 
other  links  in  the  chain  of  salvation  and  the  election  of  grace  do 
not  pertain  to  him. 

Briefly  then:  "When  you  will  permit  yourselves  to  be 
saved" — then  you  can  .  .  .  confess:  "God  has  chosen  me  also 
from  eternity  unto  salvation."  "But  if  you  will  not  do  this,"  then 
call  down  woe  upon  yourselves.  "FOR"  —  now  the  reason  is  fur- 
nished— "those  whom  God  has  chosen,  He  has  chosen  not  merely 
unto  salvation,  but  also  unto  repentance  and  sanctification." 
Whomever,  therefore,  He  could  not  elect  unto  repentance  and 
sanctification,  He  could  also  not  elect  unto  salvation.  "Who- 
ever, therefore,  will  not  permit  himself  to  be  conformed  to  the 
image  of  God's  Son  need  not  be  surprised" — there  is  no  "won- 
derful mystery"  about  it — "to  find  that  the  other  links  in  the  chain 
of  salvation  and  the  election  of  grace  do  not  pertain  to  him"! 

Preceding  this  he  says:  "The  cause,  why  they  believe  con- 
stantly is  that  they  are  elected,"  and  quotes  in  proof  §  8  of  the 
F.  C.  We  see  from  this  that  then  already  he  did  not  properly 
understand  the  words:  Election  is  a  cause  which  procures,  helps, 
and  promotes  our  salvation  and  what  pertains  thereto.  But  it  is 
clear  that  he  put  an  altogether  orthodox  construction  on  the 
sentence  he  misunderstood.  For  an  "election  unto  faith",  under- 
stood as  he  here  explains  it,  contains  nothing  Calvinistic.  The 
root  of  the  present  error  lies  indeed  in  the  misunderstanding  of 
this  sentence  of  the  Confession,  and  our  opponents  point  trium- 
phantly to  these  utterances  of  Dr.  Walther  to  prove  that  at  that 
time  already  he  publicly  taught  as  he  does  now.  But  they  say 
nothing  of  his  explanations,  which  remove  completely  any  Cal- 


Thesis  II.  645^ 

vinistic  construction.  And  Dr.  W.  himself  reviles  Prof.  Stell- 
horn,  as  we  have  seen,  for  writing:  God  cannot,  etc.,  while  he 
himself,  Dr.  W.,  had  gone  much,  much  farther  in  this  regard. 
He  declared  it  to  be  absolutely  impossible  for  God  to  convert  and 
save  those  who  obstinately  resist,  whereas  Prof.  Stellhorn  spoke 
only  of  conversion  and  salvation  in  the  "ordinary  way",  precisely 
as  does  our  Confession.  If  now  St.  is  an  "arch-rationahst"'  on 
this  account,  what  then  was  Dr.  W.?  And  if  St.  is  now  an 
"arch-rationalist",  and  if  Dr.  W.  has  been  the  same  or  worse 
how  then  about  the  Confession,  which  also  declares:  The  Holy 
Ghost  cannot  effect  His  work  in  them?  How  does  Dr.  W.  agree 
with  the  Formula  of  Concord  now?  For  this  is  the  climax  of 
the  entire  present  controversy:  Did  God,  in  eternal  election, 
find  in  those  whom  he  did  not  elect  such  a  hindrance  that  He 
could  not  elect  them,  and  do  we  know  what  this  hindrance  is; 
or  is  it  an  unrevealed  mystery,  why  God  did  not  ordain  all  unto 
salvation,  and  why  just  those,  not  the  rest?  Could  God,  as  Mis- 
souri has  explicitly  asserted,  remove  the  resistance  of  the  non- 
elect  "just  as  easily"  as  that  of  the  others,  so  that  it  is  a  mystery 
why  He  does  not  do  so?  Missouri  says  that  God  could,  our 
Confession  that  He  could  not;  Missouri  claims  that  in  this  there 
lies  an  unsearchable  mystery,  our  Confession  explains  the  matter 
and  furnishes  a  "cause";  Missouri  thus  makes  election  itself  alto- 
gether a  mystery,  our  Confession  tells  us  to  seek  election  in  the 
Word  where  also  it  is  revealed.  Missouri  declares  that  we  can- 
not explain  election,  that  we  cannot  harmonize  it  with  the  uni- 
versal counsel  of  grace,  that  between  the  two  there  lies  a  deep 
gulf  which  we  cannot  span;  our  Confession  declares  that  election 
is  "explained"  by  the  parable  in  Matt.  22  (concerning  the  king's 
marriage  feast)  and  in  other  places.  How  then  does  Missouri 
agree  with  the  Confession?  Answer:  Just  as  it  agrees  with  Dr. 
Luther,  with  Chemnitz  (see  Minutes,  81!),  with  Gerhard,  etc., 
and  with  Dr.  W.'s  own  Postille!  Missouri  now  agrees  with  the 
Confession  just  as  it  does  with  Dietrich's  School  Catechism,  con- 
cerning which  they  said  at  Ft.  Wayne :  "As  far  now,  in  particu- 
lar, as  Dietrich's  small  Catechism  is  concerned,  which  our  synod 
has  adopted  as  its  own,  it  must  be  said  that  the  passage  treating  of 
election  unto  eternal  life  is  one  that  can  be  understood  entirely 
aright.  The  synod  is  not  bound  to  interpret  Dietrich's  small 
Catechism,  which  it  has  made  its  own,  according  to  incorrect 


646  A  Testirno7iy  Agamst  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

utterances  which  the  original  author  made  in  other  writings;  on 
the  contrary,  it  understands  the  Catechism  according  to  the  utter- 
ances of  the  author  which  are  perfectly  in  accord  with  the  Con- 
fession, and  according  to  the  Confession  of  the  Church,  which  in- 
terpretation the  words  of  the  Catecliism  admit."    Report  1881,  83. 

They  thus  dare  no  longer  assert  that  the  Catechism  con- 
tains their  doctrine;  they  only  say  that  the  Catechism  can  be 
understood  entirely  aright,  that  the  words  admit  the  correct,  i. 
e.  Missourian  interpretation,  which  means  that  they  can  so  twist 
the  words;  and  their  authority  for  so  doing  is  the  fact,  that  the 
synod  has  adopted  the  Catechism  "as  its  text-book",  they  are 
therefore  not  bound,  i.  e.  in  duty,  to  interpret  it  according  to 
incorrect  utterances  made  by  the  original  author,  i.  e.  old  Diet- 
rich himself,  in  other  writings. 

It  is  absolutely  not  true — any  person  can  convince  himself 
about  it — that  the  words  of  the  Catechism  "admit  the  interpreta- 
tion" of  Missouri,  i.  e.  that  an  election  unto  the  call  and  unto 
faith  can  be  found  in  them.  To  admit  this  interpretation  the 
words  must  be  miserably  perverted.  And  if  they  claim  authority 
for  this  because  they  have  adopted  the  Catechism  as  their  "text- 
book", we  proceed  to  inquire:  Why  do  they  take  a  Catechism 
as  a  text-book  which  does  not  clearly  and  definitely  contain  their 
doctrine?  And  then:  If  they  claim  authority  to  give  the  Cate- 
chism an  interpretation  different  from  the  original  signification 
of  the  words,  would  they  not  have  had  authority  simply  to  alter 
the  section  concerning  election,  to  supplement,  or  to  explain  it, 
especially  since  they  have  actually  added  other  questions,  as  the 
preface  clearly  declares? 

The  simple  case  is  this:  Missouri  has  latterly  changed  its 
doctrine  of  election  and  does  not  like  to  admit  it.  We  will  see 
later  how  they  themselves  interpreted  Dietrich.  Missouri  hap- 
pens to  be  in  a  difficulty,  hence  it  lies  a  little — to  be  sure,  a  little 
strongly.  It  stands  in  contradiction  to  Rom.  8,  11,  to  the  F.C., 
to  Dr.  Luther,  to  Chemnitz,  to  all  our  dogmaticians,  to  its  own 
•  Catechism,  and  to  its  own  former  self,  and  lacks  the  courage 
to  abandon  all  and  take  its  position  beside  the  Calvinists  alone. 
Hence  it  contents  itself  to  "interpret"  all  contradictory  proposi- 
tions, i.  e.  to  give  them  another  meaning.  Only  in  us  Missouri 
condemns  the  sentences  which  on  the  part  of  the  Confession  and 
of  our  old  teachers  it  finds  merely  liable  to  misunderstanding,  so 


Thesis  II.  647 

that  they  can  still  be  interpreted  correctly.  It  condemns  these 
sentences  in  us,  because  we  are  still  alive,  and  will  not  be  silent 
and  submit  to  its  perversions.  For  this  reason  they  send  the 
Presidents  to  harass  us,  declare  us  "unworthy  of  the  office",  as 
people  who  have  broken  their  ordination  vows,  seek  to  expel  us, 
and,  when  this  fails,  erect  opposition  altars  in  our  congregations! 
The  old  Crypto-Calvinists  once  proceeded  in  exactly  the  same  way 
and  were  successful  for  a  long  time,  till  at  last  the  bubble  of  decep- 
tion burst. 


THESIS  m. 

Election  is  revealed  in  the  gospel  a7id  not  in  the  law. 

The  foregoing  discussion  has  shown  us  in  general  that  elec- 
tion is  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  is  therefore  no  mystery, 
as  Missouri  would  have  it.  The  Scriptures,  however,  contain  a 
twofold  revelation,  the  law  and  the  gospel.  The  present  thesis 
tells  us  where  we  must  seek  election;  it  is  revealed  in  the  gospel 
and  not  in  the  law. 

The  law  reveals  our  sin  and  the  wrath  of  God  because  of 
sin.  It  shows  us  no  escape  from  this  wrath  and  gives  no  hope 
whatever.  Hence  there  can  be  no  thought  of  election  unto  eter- 
nal life  in  the  law. 

Since  election  is  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  it  must  be  re- 
vealed in  the  gospel;  for  there  is  no  third  revelation  in  regard  ta 
the  salvation  or  condemnation  of  men.  In  John  1,  17,  we  are 
told:  "The  law  was  given  by  Moses>  but  grace  and  truth  came 
by  Jesus  Christ."  In  Gal.  3,  2,  Paul  asks:  "Received  ye  the 
Spirit  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith?"  A 
third  means,  whereby  they  might  think  to  have  received  the  Spirit,, 
is  therefore  inconceivable.  Accordingly,  there  are  not  three 
revelations,  the  law,  the  gospel,  and  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion; on  the  contrary,  election  is  revealed  in  the  gospel.  If,  there- 
fore, the  gospel  is  preached  entirely  and  fully,  it  will  necessarily 
include  election,  even  though  the  word  "election"  is  not  named. 
For  everything  depends  not  on  a  single  word,  but  on  the  matter 
itself.  The  law  and  the  gospel  can  be  preached,  and  both  of 
them  perfectly  correctly,  without  naming  either  of  the  two  words- 
Accordingly  our  Confession  declares:  "Christ  .  .  .  has  pub- 
lished to  us  the  will  of  the  Father,  and  thus  also  our  eternal  elec- 
tion to  eternal  life,  viz.  when  He  says:  Repent  ye,  and  believe 
the  gospel;  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand.  He  also  says:  This 
*is  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the 
Son  and  believeth  on  Him  may  have  everlasting  life.  And  again: 
God  so  loved  the  world,  etc."     Art.  XL,  §  67. 

Election  is  named  in  none  of  these  passages;  and  yet  our 
Confession  declares  that  election  is  revealed  in  them;  they  con- 

(648) 


Thesis  III.  649 

tain  the  thing  itself  and  not  the  name.  The  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  therefore,  is  at  the  same  time  the  preachmg  of  predes- 
tination. This  is  really  self-evident,  if  only  we  hold  fast  that 
election  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  as  the  F.  C.  constantly  reiterates. 
But  our  opponents  twist  all  these  declarations  of  the  Con- 
fession about  (we  will  examine  them  presently)  by  saying  that 
"revealed  in  the  Gospel"  is  only  to  state  that  the  elect  come  to 
know  from  the  Gospel  that  they  are  elected.  They  tell  us  that 
the  Gospel  does  not  reveal  election  itself,  the  rule  or  the  order 
according  to  which  God  elected  one  man  and  did  not  elect  another; 
that  this  is  an  unsearchable  mystery;  but  that  we  must  learn  from 
the  Gospel  whether  I  or  whether  you  are  elected.  But  we  have 
already  seen  that  this  is  the  very  thing  they  cannot  learn  with 
unconditional  certainty  from  the  Gospel;  for,  since  they  them- 
selves admit  that  some  "faithful  Christians"  may  deny  their  faith 
even  after  40  or  50  years  and  be  lost,  and  since  the  Gospel  gives 
them  no  "special  promises"  which  would  not  be  given  to  other 
"faithful  Christians,"  therefore  they  cannot  derive  from  the  Gos- 
pel the  certainty,  that  it  will  never  be  possible  for  them  to  deny 
the  faith  and  be  lost.  The  words,  "election  is  revealed  in  the 
Gospel,"  cannot  possibly  say  this.  And  they  do  not  say  it.  But 
our  opponents  are  compelled  by  their  doctrine  to  evade  the  clear 
sense  of  the  words  and  to  take  refuge  constantly  in  artificial  in- 
terpretations. For,  as  we  have  already  seen,  they  claim  that  there 
are  two  altogether  dissimilar  counsels;  one,  that  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world  God  elected  a  number  of  men  to  salvation, 
the  other,  that  which  He  revealed  in  the  Gospel.  They  tell  us 
Ihat  these  two  counsels  apparently  contradict  each  other.  But 
we  have  already  seen  that,  as  they  state  them,  there  is  a  real  con- 
tradiction. According  to  the  revealed  counsel  God  desires  the 
salvation  of  all  men  with  the  same  earnestness  and  there  is  no 
respect  of  persons,  i.  e.  none  is  preferred,  and  none  is  neglected: 
outside  of  Christ  God  sees  them  all  as  the  children  of  wrath,  unto 
Christ  He  would  lead  them  all,  yet  none  with  irresistible  power, 
in  Christ  all  are  to  be  accepted.  But  according  to  the  Missou- 
rian  counsel  of  election  God  would  have  made  provision  only  for 
a  few,  would  have  granted  the  grace  of  election — which  in  reality 
comprehends  all  grace — from  the  very  start  only  to  a  few,  without 
seeing  any  cause  for  such  action  on  His  part  in  men,  either  on  the 
one  side  or  on  the  other.     This  is  an  unsolvable  mystery.     But 


650  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

furthermore,  according"  to  the  counsel  revealed  in  the  Gospel 
God  offers  forgiveness  of  sins,  life,  and  salvation  to  all  men,  only 
however  on  the  condition  of  their  believing  in  Christ,  which  faith 
He  is  ready  to  kindle  in  the  heart  by  this  offer  of  His.  But 
according  to  the  Missourian  counsel  of  election  God  would  have 
bestowed  forgiveness  of  sin,  life,  and  salvation  and  faith  in  the 
bargain  upon  some  certain  persons  without  a  condition.  The 
one  counsel  of  God  would  therefore  be  universal,  yet  conditional, 
the  other  particular  and  unconditional.  The  latter,  therefore, 
cannot  possibly  be  contained  in  the  former,  or,  which  is  the  same 
thing,  election  could  not  possibly  be  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  for 
then  the  Gospel  would  have  to  contradict  itself.  But  our  oppo- 
nents hold  with  the  same  tenacity  to  the  assertion  that  election  is 
a  mystery;  they  warn  us,  never  to  confound  the  twu — universal 
counsel  of  grace  and  predestination — but  to  keep  them  carefully 
separated,  as  we  separate  Law  and  Gospel.  "L.  u.  W."  writes: 
^'Only  in  so  far  as  the  elect  hear  the  Gospel,  believe  in  Christ,  etc., 
does  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  enter  the  idea  of  predestina- 
tion." In  every  other  respect  then  the  Gospel  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  idea  of  "election"!  The  two  touch,  as  it  were,  only  at 
one  point.  We  ask  every  sensible  Christian  whether  this  can 
be  what  our  Confession  declares:  "Election  is  revealed  in  the 
Gospel"?  They  say:  "It  pleased  God  to  clothe  and  enfold,  as 
it  were,  the  mystery  of  our  election  in  the  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel." Note  it:  "As  it  were" — not  even  in  reality — "to  clothe 
and  enfold."  And  this  is  to  mean:  "Election  is  REVEALED 
to  us  in  the  Gospel"!!  So  shamefully  they  find  themselves  com- 
pelled to  twist  and  turn  the  lucid,  clear  words  of  the  Confession 
in  order  to  hold  fast  their  false  notion,  that  God  did  not  act  accord- 
ing to  the  revealed  rule  in  election:  He  that  believes  shall  be 
saved. 

Just  as  they  say,  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  enters  the  idea 
of  predestination  "only  in  so  far"  as  the  elect  hear  the  Gospel, 
so  we  could  say,  with  the  same  right,  the  preaching  of  the  law 
enters  the  idea  of  election;  for  the  elect  also  hear  the  law.  Do 
th.ey  not?  And  then  election  would  be  revealed  also  in  the  law — 
in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  Gospel! 

But  let  us  examine  what  our  Confession  means  by  saying: 
■"Election  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel." 

The  F.  C.  is  divided  into  two  parts.     The  first  states  each 


Thesis  III.  651 

■separate  article  briefly  and  tersely;  this  is  the  Epitome.  The  sec- 
ond proves  and  explains  each  article  fully;  this  is  the  Solid  Dec- 
laration. Each  of  these  two  parts  has  its  special  merits.  The 
Epitome  makes  it  easy  to  see  at  once  the  chief  points  at  issue  in 
€ach  article.  The  Solid  Declaration  then  proceeds  to  discuss 
these  points  from  all  sides  and  to  put  them  into  the  proper  light. 
We  begin  by  taking  up  the  Epitome  of  the  eleventh  article. 
First  of  all  the  "pure  and  true  doctrine  concerning  this  article" 
is  stated  in  14  theses,  and  then  the  "false  doctrine  concerning 
this  article"  in  4  theses. 

The  first  four  theses  read  as  follows: 

1)  "First  of  all,  the  distinction  between  foreknowledge  and 
predestination  ought  to  be  accurately  observed." 

2)  "For  the  foreknowledge  of  God  is  nothing  else  than  that 
God  knows  all  things  before  they  happen,  as  it  is  written :  There 
is  a  God  in  heaven  that  revealeth  secrets  and  maketh  known  to 
the  King  Nebuchadnezzar  what  shall  be  in  the  latter  days.  Dan. 
2,  28." 

3)  "This  foreknowledge  is  occupied  alike  with  the  godly 
and  the  wicked;  but  it  is  not  the  cause  of  evil  or  of  sin,  so  that 
men  do  what  is  wrong  (which  originally  arises  from  the  devil,  and 
the  wicked,  perverse  will  of  man);  nor  the  cause  of  their  ruin,  for 
which  they  themselves  are  responsible;  but  only  regulates  it,  and 
fixes  to  it  a  limit  how  long  it  should  last,  and  that  everything,  not- 
withstanding that  in  itself  it  is  evil,  should  serve  His  elect  for  their 
salvation." 

4)  "The  predestination  or  eternal  election  of  God,  however, 
is  occupied  only  with  the  godly,  beloved  children  of  God,  and 
this  is  a  cause  of  their  salvation,  which  He  also  provides  as  well 
as  disposes  what  belongs  thereto.  Upon  this  our  salvation  is 
founded  so  firmly  that  the  gates  of  hell  cannot  overcome  it." 

This  portion  of  the  article  we  must  examine  a  little  more 
closely.  We  have  here  the  difiference  between  God's  foreknowl- 
edge and  God's  predestination  or  eternal  election.  The  differ- 
ence is  twofold:  — 

1.  The  foreknowledge  of  God  is  occupied  alike  with  the 
godly  and  the  wicked,  hence  with  all  men.  Thesis  3.  —  Predesti- 
nation or  election,  however,  is  occupied  only  with  the  godlv. 

2.  The  foreknowledge  of  God  is  "nothing  elese  than  that 


652  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

God  knows  all  things",  even  what  is  evil,  and  it  is  no  cause  of  the 
evil.  —  Predestination,  however,  is  a  cause  of  salvation. 

This  difiference  "ought  to  be  accurately  observed",  we  are 
told.  And  why  so?  So  as  to  ward  off  the  impious  notion,  that 
God  is  guilty  of  the  sin  and  ruin  of  the  wicked,  which  is  explicitly 
denied  in  thesis  3.  It  cannot  and  dare  not  be  denied  that  God 
foreknows  the  evil;  He  Himself  has  foretold  much  evil  in  the 
Scriptures,  e.  g.  Judas'  betrayal,  the  wickedness  of  antichrist,  the 
great  falling  away  in  the  last  times,  etc.  But  this  foreknowledge  is 
no  cause  of  sin,  it  is  "nothing  else"  than  that  God  sees  and  knows 
it  in  advance.  God  knew  well  and  even  foretold  that  Judas  would 
betray.  But  this  did  not  compel  Judas  to  betray;  on  the  contrary, 
because  he  betrayed  of  his  own  wickedness  and  through  the  devil's 
impulse,  therefore  God  foreknew  the  betrayal.  God's  foreknowl- 
edge, therefore,  was  no  predestination,  no  ordaining  thereto.  The 
earlier  Calvinists  denied  this  distinction;  they  asserted  that  God 
foreknew  all  things  simply  because  He  Himself  had  foreordained 
them,  even  sin.  They  taught  that  predestination  is  occupied  with 
all  men,  viz.  some  were  ordained  unto  unbelief  and  unto  damna- 
tion, others  unto  faith  and  unto  salvation ;  they  taught  an  election 
of  wrath  and  an  election  of  grace. 

This  double  idea  of  election  and  predestination  our  Confes- 
sion wants  to  abolish ;  and  this  is  the  intention  above  all  of  thesis 
4:  "The  predestination  or  eternal  election  of  God,  however,  is 
occupied  only  with  the  godly,  beloved  children  of  God",  "who 
were  elected  and  appointed  to  eternal  life  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world",  as  the  Solid  Deck  adds,  in  order  to  show  beyond 
peradventure  that  this  is  a  predestination  unto  life  and  not  unto 
death. 

Concerning  this  predestination  thesis  4  goes  on  to  say:  "And 
this  is  a  cause  of  their  salvation,  which  He  also  provides  as  well  as 
disposes  what  belongs  thereto,  etc."  These  words,  as  far  as  the 
F.  C.  and  its  interpretation  is  concerned,  constitute  the  chief  point 
of  controversy  between  us  and  our  opponents,  and,  beginning 
with  these  words,  we  dififer  with  them  on  every  following  sentence 
to  the  end  of  the  article.  They  lose  the  real  purpose  of  these  first 
four  propositions  of  the  Confession.  Whereas  nothing  but  the 
"difference"  is  to  be  stated  here,  in  order  to  ward  ofT  the  false 
notion  of  a  double  predestination  unto  salvation  and  unto  con- 
demnation, and  in  order  thus  to  pave  the  way  for  the  treatment 
proper  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  they  tear  these  four  theses 


Thesis  III.  658 

irom  their  context  and  claim:  "Predestination  is  occupied  only 
with  the  children  of  God"  —  this  already  is  all  the  Confession 
means  to  say  regarding  election  itself;  nor  do  the  Scriptures  reveal 
more  than  this,  that  God  merely  has  elected  a  few.  Why  so; 
according  to  what  rule  and  order;  why  not  also  the  rest?  —  this 
is  all  a  mystery.  And  then  they  interpret  the  words:  "Predesti- 
nation is  occupied  only  with  the  godly,  beloved  children  of  God", 
or  as  the  Sol.  Decl.  has  it:  "Predestination  pertains  not  at  the 
same  time  to  the  godly  and  the  wicked,  but  only  to  the  children 
of  God"  —  they  interpret  these  words  as  though  God  had  viewed 
all  men  as  godless,  and  had  then  chosen  some  of  them  in  order 
to  make  of  them  pious,  beloved  children  of  God.  Hence  they 
frequently  use  "persons"  or  "men"  instead  of  "children  of  God." 
The  following  words:  "Predestination  is  a  cause  of  their  salva- 
tion", they  take  to  prove  that  God  has  prepared  something  special 
for  these  elect  persons,  in  a  word,  that  He  elected  them  unto  the 
call  and  unto  faith. 

Everything  that  follows  in  the  Confession,  Missouri  thinks, 
is  merely  to  show  how  a  Christian  becomes  certain  of  his  election. 

But  we  need  only  to  read  the  article  in  its  connection  in  order 
to  see  at  once  that  thesis  4  treats  still  of  the  difiference  discussed, 
and  says  concerning  election  itself  only  what  is  necessary  to  eluci- 
date this  difiference.  The  proper  elucidation  of  the  doctrine  of 
election  itself  begins  with  thesis  5,  which  reads:  — 

5)  "This  is  not  to  be  investigated  in  the  secret  counsel  of 
God,  but  to  be  sought  in  the  Word  of  God,  where  it  is  also 
revealed." 

"It",  election,  "is  revealed  in  the  Word."  Can  this  mean  to 
say  that  from  the  Word  of  God  we  can  become  certain  of  our 
election?  If  the  F.  C.  really  desired  to  say  that,  it  would  use 
words  entirely  different. 

6)  "But  the  Word  of  God  leads  us  to  Christ,  who  is  the  Book 
of  Life,  in  whom  all  are  written  and  elected  that  are  to  be  saved, 
as  it  is  written:  He  hath  chosen  us  in  Him  (Christ)  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world." 

In  the  Word,  therefore,  yet  not  in  the  law,  but  in  the  gospel 
(the  Word  leads  us  to  Christ)  we  are  to  seek  election;  for  Christ 
is  the  Book  of  Life.  In  Him  we  are  chosen.  The  Sol.  Decl.,  §65, 
is  similar:  "Therefore  this  eternal  election  of  God  is  to  be  consid- 
ered in  Christ,  and  not  beyond  or  without  Christ."  To  "consider" 
election,  evidently,  is  not  to  search  out  whether  I  am  elected,  but 


654  A  Testi?nony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

to  meditate  upon  election  itself,  what  it  is,  and  what  about  it. 
This,  however,  is  not  learned  by  speculations  concerning  the 
secret  counsel  of  God,  but  by  the  gospel  of  Christ.  And  what  dO' 
we  hear  about  election  in  this  gospel? 

7)  "Thus  Christ  calls  to  Himself  all  sinners,  and  promises 
them  rest,  and  He  is  anxious  that  all  men  should  come  to  Him 
and  permit  Him  to  help  them.  To  them  He  offers  Himself  in 
His  Word,  and  wishes  them  to  hear  it,  and  not  to  stop  their  ears 
or  despise  the  Word.  He  promises  besides  the  power  and  effi- 
ciency of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  divine  assistance  for  perseverance 
and  eternal  salvation." 

This  is  what  we  learn  of  Christ  concerning  eternal  election, 
namely  that  He  calls  all  sinners  unto  Himself  and  promises  them 
rest.  And  since  the  Calvinists  taught,  Christ  calls  all  sinners 
indeed,  but  He  really  means  only  the  elect,  the  Confession  at  once 
adds:  "And  He  is  anxious  that  all  men  should  come  to  Him  and 
permit  Him  to  help  them;  to  them  He  offers  Himself  in  the 
Word."  But  these  words  are  as  necessary  now  against  Missouri 
as  they  are  against  the  old  Calvinists.  A'lissouri  in  part  at  least 
avoids  the  old,  notorious  expressions,  yet  it  holds  the  same  doc- 
trine. They  do  not  say  that  Christ  is  not  anxious  and  in  earnest 
in  calling  all  men.  But  they  do  say:  He  calls  only  the  elect 
"according  to  the  purpose";  whether  the  difference  is  great,  or 
whether  there  is  any  difference  at  all,  is  easy  enough  to  see.  Like- 
wise they  teach  as  do  the  Calvinists,  that  no  man  obtains  persever- 
ing faith  who  is  not  called  according  to  that  particular  purpose. 

This  is  one  thing  Christ  tells  us  concerning  election,  namely 
that  from  the  start  and  according  to  the  intention  of  God  nobody 
is  excluded  from  salvation  and  therefore  also  not  from  predesti- 
nation. The  doctrine  of  universal  grace,  of  the  redemption  of  all 
men,  of  the  earnest  and  efficacious  call  of  all  men,  in  brief,  the 
doctrine  of  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  is  the  foremost  and 
most  important  thing  in  considering  predestination.  For  thus 
alone  does  it  become  clear  that  God's  grace  is  really  universal, 
and  that  it  is  not  God's  fault  that  so  many  men  are  lost.  As  has 
been  said,  all  this  belongs  necessarily  to  the  idea  of  election ;  and 
our  opponents  themselves  brand  their  doctrine  as  false  and  god- 
less by  their  very  claim,  that  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination 
there  must  be  silence  as  regards  universal  grace,  that  they  cannot 
harmonize  the  two. 

But  thesis  7  continues:   "He  wishes  them  to  hear  it,  and  not 


Thesis  III.  655 

to  stop  their  ears  or  despise  the  Word."  Something  of  this  sort, 
therefore,  is  possible,  and  alas,  it  actually  takes  place,  and  that 
often;  and  thesis  11  lays  special  stress  on  this  as  being  the  cause 
why  so  few  of  the  called  are  chosen.  Thesis  7  goes  on  to  say: 
"He  promises  besides  the  power  and  efificiency  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  divine  assistance  for  perseverance  and  eternal  salvation." 

These  are  golden  words,  and  like  an  iron  wall  they  oppose 
all  the  tricks  and  arts  of  interpretation  which  Missouri  brings 
against  them. 

Christ  "promises"  ■ —  and  what  He  promises  He  will  most 
surely  give.  What  does  He  promise?  The  power  and  efficiency 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  (for  conversion  through  the  Word,  which  all 
men  are  to  hear),  divine  assistance  for  perseverance  and  eternal 
salvation.  So  then,  He  promises  everything  that  the  elect  really 
obtain.  To  whom  does  He  promise  all  this?  Only  to  the  elect? 
By  no  means!  "Resides",  i.  e.  for  the  hearing  of  the  Word,  no 
matter  who  hears  it.  The  Missourian  Calvinistic  fable,  that  God 
has  determined  to  send  the  Holy  Ghost  especially  to  the  elect,  so 
that  they  must  be  converted,  must  persevere  in  faith,  has  no 
shadow  of  foundation  in  the  Confession.  The  Confession  never 
speaks  of  an  election  unto  the  call,  unto  faith ;  on  the  contrary,  it 
testifies  here  and  everywhere  that  Christ  calls  all  sinners  unto 
Himself,  and  that  all  men  are  to  come  to  Him. 

Admission  to  the  treasures  of  salvation  is,  therefore,  open  to 
all  men;  but  men  are  bound  to  the  right  use  of  the  Word. 
Whoever  wilfully  despises  it  will  not  be  saved  by  God,  and  is  not 
elected  of  God.  Thus  election  is  revealed  in  the  gospel,  and  just 
so  much  and  no  more  is  stated  in  the  Confession. 

Thesis  9  especially  shows  clearly  that  we  have  given  the  true 
sense  of  the  F.  C.  Thesis  8  gives  the  contrary  position,  and  thesis 
9  then  proceeds  to  repeat  the  foregoing  briefly.  Let  us  take  this 
up  at  once:  — 

9)  "But  the  true  judgment  concerning  predestination  must 
be  learned  alone  from  the  Holy  Gospel  concerning  Christ,  in 
which  it  is  clearly  testified  that  God  hath  concluded  them  all  in 
unbelief,  that  He  might  have  mercy  upon  all,  and  that  He  is  not 
willing  that  any  should  perish-,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repent- 
ance and  believe  in  Christ." 

"It  must  be  learned  alone  from  the  Holy  Gospel"  —  what 
must?  The  true  judgment  concerning  predestination,  according 
to  what  rule  and  order  God  separated  men.     This  interpretation 


656  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

our  opponents  cannot  admit,  as  long  as  they  do  not  intend  to 
give  up  their  entire  doctrine  of  predestination;  for  if  we  can 
learn  from  the  gospel  the  rule  according  to  which  God  elected  and 
rejected,  if  this  rule  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  then  Missouri  errs  in 
asserting  that  God  elected  according  to  a  hidden  rule,  according 
to  a  so-called  "free"  will,  then  it  errs  in  asserting  that  we  do  not 
know  "why  God  did  not  elect  the  rest",  then  it  errs  in  denying 
that  God  considered  faith  in  election,  then  it  errs  in  asserting  an 
election  unto  the  call  and  unto  faith  and  thereby  evidently  a  two- 
fold call  through  the  gospel,  hence  evidently  also  a  twofold  Bap- 
tism —  one  according  to  the  purpose  of  election,  the  other  without 
such  a  purpose.  In  all  these  specifically  Missourian-Calvinistic 
inventions  Missouri  errs,  if  the  rule  of  election  is  revealed  in  the 
gospel.  Hence  Missouri  declares  obstinately,  as  already  stated, 
that  all  these  sentences  in  the  Confession:  "Election  is  revealed 
in  the  gospel";  "It  must  be  learned  from  the  Holy  Gospel",  etc., 
mean  only  to  say  that  in  the  gospel  a  Christian  is  to  seek  the  cer- 
tainty of  his  election  —  in  the  gospel,  not  immediately  in  the 
secret  counsel  of  God.  All  who  have  really  comprehended  accu- 
rately the  point  on  which  the  whole  controversy  turns,  will  readily 
admit  that  we  are  right  and  our  opponents  wrong,  if  the  rule  of 
election  is  revealed  in  the  gospel;  and  that  we  agree  with  the  Con- 
fession, while  our  opponents  have  fallen  from  it,  if  the  expressions 
referred  to  in  the  Confession  state  not  the  personal  certainty  of 
individual  Christians  concerning  their  own  election,  but  the  simple 
rule  of  election.  It  will  therefore  certainly  be  worth  the  trouble 
to  study  carefully  these  expressions  of  the  Confession. 

Now  there  is  a  large  number  of  such  phrases  in  the  Confes- 
sion, and  when  we  carefully  collate  them,  there  can  remain  no 
doubt  whatever  as  to  their  true  meaning,  even  though  one  or  the 
other  of  them,  taken  by  itself,  might  be  twisted  m  a  double  sense. 

Thesis  5  reads:  "This  —  election  —  is  not  to  be  investigated 
in  the  secret  counsel  of  God."  In  the  same  way:  It  is  "to  be 
sought  in  the  Word  of  God."  "This",  "Election"  - —  can  that  sig- 
nify, "The  certainty  of  my  election"?  Furthermore:  "Where  it 
is  also  revealed."  Can  our  opponents  themselves  declare  that  it 
is  revealed  in  the  Word  that  they  are  elected?  They  can  only 
say  that  the  marks  of  the  elect  are  given  in  the  Word,  and  from 
these  marks  they  can  draw  certain  conclusions.  But  the  Word 
evidently  does  not  reveal  in  whom  these  marks  are  found.  If  it 
were  revealed  in  the  Word  that  for  instance  they,  our  opponents. 


Thesis  III.  657 

are  elected,  then,  besides  their  being  certain  themselves  of  their 
election,  other  people  also  would  have  to  be  able  to  find  in  the 
Word  that  they,  our  opponents,  or  whoever  else  is  elected,  are 
elected.  "Election  is  revealed  in  the  gospel"  —  cannot  possibly 
express  what  they  would  have  it  express.  Our  opponents  them- 
selves do  not  use  such  language  when  they  speak  of  their  certainty* 
but  employ  altogether  different  words;  and  when  they  come  to 
these  sentences  in  the  Confession  they  are  compelled  to  use  the 
boldest  kind  of  interpretations  to  arrive  at  the  meaning  they 
desire.  This,  election  is  revealed  in  the  gospel,  is  to  say:  I 
become  certain  from  the  Word  that  I  am  elected!  Even  if  the 
latter  proposition  were  true,  other  words  than  those  of  the  Con- 
fession would  have  to  be  used  in  saying  so.  These  words  mean 
something  else. 

In  thesis  8  we  meet  the  expression,  "Therefore  we  should 
judge  concerning  this  our  election."  "Our  election"  could  indeed 
be  understood  as  though  the  elect  were  undoubtedly  certain  of  the 
fact  of  their  election.  But,  if  we  take  for  granted  that  such  is  the 
case,  the  sense  of  the  whole  expression,  "judge  concerning  this 
our  election",  would  not  yet  be,  "search  whether  we  are  elected", 
but  would  still  remain,  "judge  concerning  our  election  itself  how 
matters  stand  in  regard  to  it."  In  the  following,  accordingly,  we 
find  a  false  idea  of  election,  and  not  a  false  answer  to  the  question, 
as  to  whether  I  am  elected,  given  as  the  result  of  "judging  con- 
cerning our  election"  from  reason  or  from  the  law. 

And  now  the  sentence  follows:  "But  the  true  judgment  con- 
cerning predestination  must  be  learned  alone  from  the  Holy 
Gospel  concerning  Christ."  We  ask,  what  must  be  learned  from 
the  Holy  Gospel?  This,  that  I  am  elected?  No;  as  we  have 
seen,  this  cannot  be  what  the  Confession  wishes  to  say  by  these 
expressions.  But  we  are  told  at  once  what  we  must  learn  from 
the  Holy  Gospel:  "In  which  it  is  clearly  testified  that  God  hath 
concluded  them  all  in  unbelief,  that  He  might  have  mercy  upon 
all,  and  that  He  is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that 
all  should  come  to  repentance  and  believe  in  the  Lord  Christ." 

Can  any  one  learn  from  this  that  he  personally  is  elected 
in  preference  to  others?  Can  it  be  this  then  that  we  are  bidden 
to  learn  from  the  Holy  Gospel  concerning  Christ?  Impossible! 
For  we  have  two  universal  propositions  here:  1)  He  is  not  willing 
that  any  should  perish;  2)  It  is  His  will  that  all  should  come  to 
repentance  and  believe.     From  this  we  can  well  learn,  1)  that 


658  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

in  election  also  God  surely  omitted  no  one  whom  He  could 
elect;  2)  that  He  surely  elected  no  one  without  making  sure 
(humanly  speaking)  that  the  person  would  believe.  The  limits 
within  which  God  elected  men  unto  salvation  are  thus  stated. 
The  Latin  text  of  the  Confession  is  even  more  explicit;  verbally 
translated,  we  read:  "The  true  judgment  concerning  predes- 
tination must  be  learned  from  the   Gospel  of  Christ." 

These  words  our  opponents  cannot  subject  to  their  inter- 
pretation; for  "the  true  judgment  concerning  predestination"  is 
surely  not  identical  with  their  wonderful  certainty  concerning  their 
own  personal  election?  On  the  contrary,  the  right  idea,  the  correct 
conception  of  election  itself  must  be  drawn  from  the  gospel; 
the  lines  within  which,  and  the  rule  according  to  which  God 
elected,  is  there  given.  Consequently,  "the  true  judgment  con- 
cerning predestination  must  be  learned  from  the  gospel  of  Christ." 
For  this  gospel  clearly  testifies  that  God  hath  concluded  them  all 
in  unbelief,  that  He  might  have  mercy  upon  all;  and  that  He  is 
not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to 
repentance.  Rom.  11,  32;  Ez.  18,  23;  33,  11;  2  Pet.  3,  9; 
I.  John  2,  2." 

What  therefore  is  the  first  and  most  important  thing  that 
we  must  learn  from  the  gospel,  in  order  to  get  the  true  judg- 
ment or  the  correct  idea  concerning  election?  Answer:  That 
God  is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  which  is  the  universal 
will  of  grace.  Why  is  this  so  necessary  for  the  correct  defini- 
tion of  election,  even  though  all  men  are  not  elected?  We  can 
speak  of  the  universal  will  of  grace  in  its  own  proper  place;  what 
has  it  to  do  here?  Very  much!  Certainly,  all  are  not  elected; 
but  I  am  to  know  and  must  know  that  this  is  not  due  to  any 
lack  in  God  —  and  this  also  in  election.  From  this  side  nO' 
limitation  was  imposed. 

The  second  thing,  necessary  for  the  correct  definition  of 
election,  which  must  be  learned  from  the  gospel  is  this:  It  is 
God's  will,  that  all  should  come  to  repentance  and  believe  in 
Christ.  Without  this  God  will  save  no  one.  This  then  is  where 
we  might  expect  a  limitation  of  election.  And  here  is  v.here  we 
find  it  indeed.  For  we  indeed  read:  It  is  His  will  that  all  should 
come  to  repentance  and  believe  on  Christ,  wherefore  He  calls 
to  Himself  all  sinners  and  is  anxious  that  all  men  should  come 
to  Him  and  permit  Him  to  help  them,  and  hence  wishes  them 
to  hear  the  Word,  and  promises  besides  the  power  and  efficiency 


Thesis  III.  659 

of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  divine  assistance  for  perseverance  and 
eternal  salvation  (thesis  7);  accordingly,  the  grace  of  conversion 
also  and  of  preservation  in  the  faith  necessary  for  salvation  is 
in  no  way  limited  —  there  is  no  election  unto  the  call  and  unto 
faith,  ye  friends  —  on  the  contrary :  How  often  would  I  have 
gathered  you,  i.  e.  desired  to  bring  you  unto  faith,  but  ye  would 
not.  Matt.  23.  Here  is  the  limitation!  And  since  we  are  to 
get  the  true  judgment  concerning  election  from  these  statements, 
that  judgment  can  only  be:  God  did  indeed  desire  to  predesti- 
nate all  men  unto  salvation,  yet  no  man  without  faith;  but 
all  do  not  believe  although  He  calls  them  earnestly  and  effi- 
caciously; consequently,  He  did  not  predestinate  all,  but  elected 
only  a  few,  yet  only  believers,  those  who  believe  till  the  end. 
It  is  on  this  account  that  we  read  in  thesis  4:  "The  predestina- 
tion or  eternal  election  of  God  is  occupied  only  with  the  godly, 
beloved  children  of  God."  Belief  and  unbelief  —  not  a  mysteri- 
ous will  of  God  —  made  the  distinction  also  in  election.  He 
who  believes  shall  be  saved,  this  is  the  rule  revealed  in  the  gospel. 
And  from  the  gospel  the  true  judgment  concerning  election 
must  be  learned;  so  then  this  is  the  rule  of  election.  This  is 
what  our  Confession  means,  and  what  we  mean  when  we  join 
our  Confession  in  declaring:    Election  is  revealed  in  the  gospel. 

They  who  will  not  judge  concerning  election  from  the  gos- 
pel can  judge  concerning  it  only  from  reason  or  from  the  law, 
as  thesis  8  declares;  and  both  of  these  "lead  either  into  a  dissi- 
pated, dissolute  epicurean  life,  or  into  despair,  and  would  excite 
in  the  heart  of  men  pernicious  thoughts  (and  such  thoughts 
cannot  be  effectually  guarded  against  as  long  as  they  follow 
their  own  reason),  so  that  they  think  to  themselves:  If  God 
has  elected  me  to  salvation,  I  cannot  be  condemned,  although 
I  do  whatever  I  will.  And  again :  If  I  am  not  elected  to  eternal 
life,  it  matters  not  what  good  I  do,  for  my  efforts  are  nevertheless 
all  in  vain." 

These  thoughts  our  Confession  rejects  as  pernicious  pro- 
ducts of  reason.  But  what  is  there  false  about  them  according 
to  Missourian  doctrine?  Does  not  Missouri  use  almost  identical 
language?  "If  God  has  elected  me  to  salvation,  I  cannot  be 
condemned,  although  I  do  whatever  I  will."  Very  naturally 
our  opponents  do  not  say  that  the  elect  can  do  whatever  they 
will.  Rut  the  question  is  whether  those  who  have  really  imbibed 
their  doctrine  must  not  necessarily  arrive  at  such  thoughts.    They 


660  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

undoubtedly  must,  and  even  the  words  of  Missouri  say  almost 
as  much.  In  the  Report  of  '79,  p.  38,  they  say  "that  God  gives 
to  the  elect  a  richer  grace  than  to  the  non-elect."  And  this  richer 
grace  they  then  describe  as  "grace  unto  perseverance."  They  go 
on  to  say  that  "fathers  also  deal  in  the  same  way,"  preferring 
one  child  to  another,  of  course  the  one  that  obeys  best.  And 
they  conclude  their  entire  line  of  thought  by  saying:  "In  the 
same  way  God  deals  with  us,  only  He  does  not  even  ask  whether 
we  have  obeyed  or  not,  but  does  as  He  pleases."  Note  well, 
this  does  not  refer  to  conversion  or  justification,  as  to  whether 
God  asked  there  in  regard  to  our  having  obeyed  or  not;  this 
speaks  of  the  grace  of  perseverance,  of  the  preservation  in  faith 
of  those  who  are  already  justified  and  children  of  God.  Even 
these  God  treats  arbitrarily,  showing  to  some  paternal  faithful- 
ness, i.  e.  actually  saving  them,  as  He  has  promised  to  all  in 
Baptism,  but  declining  to  preserve  others,  and  this  without  ask- 
ing whether  they,  as  children,  have  obeyed  or  not.  Whomever 
He  preserves  "shall  and  must"  be  saved,  whether  he  has  obeyed 
or  not.  Is  not  this  the  identical  thought  of  reason:  "If  God 
has  elected  me,  I  cannot  be  condemned,  although  I  do  whatever 
I  will"?     Where  is  the  difference? 

"These  shall  and  must  be  saved,"  is  what  the  Report  of  '77 
says.  These  "cannot  be  condemned,"  is  what  reason  declares. 
That  is  identical.  "Whether  we  have  obeyed  or  not,"  is  the 
phrase  in  the  Report  of  '79.  "Although  I  do  whatever  I  will," 
is  the  expression  of  reason.  That  again  is  identical.  We  have 
already  repeatedly  referred  to  what  Christ  is  said  to  have  declared 
to  Peter  "and  to  all  the  elect,"  namely  that,  even  though  they 
deny  Christ  with  curses  and  perjury,  they* shall  and  must  obtain 
faith  again,  for  they  shall  and  must  be  saved.  Therefore,  the 
most  abominable  sins  cannot  harm  the  elect  as  far  as  their 
salvation  is  concerned.  Is  this  exactly  identical  with  the  thoughts 
of  reason,  only  expressed  more  repulsively  and  harshly:  "If 
I  am  elected,  I  cannot  be  condemned,  although  I  do  whatever 
I  will"? 

But,  of  course,  we  must  not  imagine  that  Missouri  would 
preach  such  flagrant  wickedness.  O  no;  they  warn  against  sins; 
they  hold  up  God's  wrath  and  judgment  to  wilful  sinners,  they 
exercise  discipline,  and  hold  fast  the  distinction  between  wilful 
sins  and  sins  of  weakness  as  decisive  in  the  question,  whether 
a  person  can  still  be  a  believing  child  of  God  (who  would  there- 


Thesis  III.  661 

fore  not  dare  be  excommunicated)  or  not.  Missouri  abominates 
what  follows  from  its  doctrine  of  election,  just  as  much  as  we 
do.  But  when  it  states  its  doctrine  of  predestination,  all  con- 
sideration is  gone.  The  wagon  has  sunken  too  deeply  into  the 
Calvinistic  rvit,  they  cannot  haul  it  out;  and  before  they  know 
it,  they  themselves  utter  sentences  of  which  afterwards  they  must 
be  ashamed,  and  then  they  pretend  they  did  not  mean  what  they 
have  said  and  revile  us  for  holding  such  things  up  to  them,  and 
yet  they  continue  to  utter  similar  offensive  sentences;  because 
they  will  not  learn  the  true  judgments  concerning  election  from 
the  gospel,  they  "cannot  effectually  guard  against  such  thoughts," 
as  our  Confession  declares. 

We  have  the  same  thing  in  regard  to  the  opposite  propo- 
sition: "If  I  am  not  elected  to  eternal  life,  it  matters  not  what 
good  I  do;  for  my  efforts  are  nevertheless  all  in  vain."  Missouri 
has  said  the  very  same  thing,  only  in  words  far  harsher  and 
more  offensive.  "If  I  do  not  belong  to  the  elect,  I  may  hear 
God's  Word  ever  so  diligently,  receive  absolution,  and  go  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  all  of  no  avail;  this  is  certainly  so."  If 
I  am  not  elected,  everything  is  of  no  avail,  is  the  conclusion  of 
reason.  If  I  am  not  elected,  everything  is  of  no  avail,  is  the  con- 
clusion of  Missouri.  Our  Confession  declares  this  to  be  false,  and 
can  so  declare  it,  since  it  views  election  on  the  broad  basis  of  uni- 
versal grace,  and  forms  its  judgment  concerning  election  from 
the  gospel  of  Christ;  for  this  shows  us  that  no  man  is  excluded 
from  salvation,  or  from  election,  who  does  not  exclude  himself. 
It  is  true,  he  who  is  not  elected  will  not  be  saved.  But  he  will 
not  be  saved  and  he  is  not  elected  for  this  reason,  and  for  this 
alone,  that  he  does  not  "hear  God's  Word  diligently,"  or  that 
he  does  not  abide  by  that  Word.  The  lips  of  eternal  truth 
themselves  have  uttered  the  word:  Blessed  are  they  that  hear 
the  Word  of  God  and  keep  it.  But  Missouri  must  add  accord- 
ing to  its  doctrine:  But  if  he  is  not  elected  the  hearing  will 
be  of  no  avail,  and  the  keeping  must  flow  from  election.  Thus 
the  doctrine  of  election  without  the  foresight  of  faith  turns  every- 
thing topsy  turvy  and  places  a  heavy  question  mark  behind  every 
divine  promise,  i.  e.  "Are  you  elected?"  And  yet  Missouri  can- 
not prove  to  a  single  person  that  he  is  elected,  and  simply  lets 
him  "stick  fast  in  this  truth  (?),"  as  it  declares  very  pertinently 
regarding  its  godless  statements. 

Thesis  10  of  the  Epitome  reads  as  follows: 


662  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

10)  "To  him,  therefore,  who  is  really  concerned  about  the 
revealed  will  of  God,  and  proceeds  according  to  the  order  which 
St.  Paul  has  observed  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  who  first 
directs  men  to  repentance,  knowledge  of  sins,  to  faith  in  Christ, 
to  divine  obedience,  before  he  speaks  of  the  mystery  of  the  eternal 
election  of  God,  this  doctrine  is  useful  and  consolatory." 

Here  the  revealed  will  of  God  and  the  mystery  of  eternal 
election  are  distinguished  from  each  other;  first  comes  the  for- 
mer, then  the  latter.  This  passage  furnishes  more  of  a  pretext 
to  our  opponents  for  their  "mystery"  than  anything  else  they 
are  able  to  adduce  from  the  Confession.  And  yet  the  words 
are  easily  understood  from  what  has  been  said  above,  they  also 
explain  themselves  sufficiently;  for  they  again  state  that  beyond 
and  without  the  Word  of  the  gospel  we  cannot  speak  in  a  salu- 
tary and  consolatory  way  concerning  election.  In  itself  elec- 
tion, like  every  other  work  of  divine  grace,  is  an  unsearchable 
mystery.  It  took  place  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  It 
would  be  impossible  for  us  to  assert  that  we  know  anything 
whatever  about  it,  if  it  had  not  been  revealed  to  us.  But  if  the 
mere  fact  had  been  revealed,  that  God  from  the  beginning  chose 
only  a  few,  this  would  be  unutterably  terrible;  it  would  not 
"hover  like  a  wonderful  mystery  over  certain  persons,"  but  like 
an  awful  mystery  over  all.  We  would  then  be  unable  "efifectually 
to  guard  against  the  thoughts"  already  referred  to  in  the  Con- 
fession, thoughts  which  constantly  reappear  in  the  Missourian 
doctrine;  namely:  If  I  am  elected,  sin  cannot  harm  me;  if  1 
am  not  elected,  no  means  of  grace  can  help  me,  "it  will  all  be 
in  vain"  —  "everything  is  of  no  avail."  But  the  mystery  here 
spoken  of  in  the  Confession  is  revealed  —  not  in  a  revelation 
dififering  from  the  gospel,  but  in  the  gospel  itself.  Ai\d  if  I 
have  carefully  learned  the  statements  which  the  gospel  clearly 
declares,  that  God  is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  and 
on  the  other  hand  that  He  will  save  no  one  without  faith,  then 
I  have  learned  the  true  judgment  concerning  election,  even 
though  I  had  never  heard  the  word  "election"  itself.  And  when 
now  I  hear  in  addition  that  God  predestinated,  i.  e.  foreordained 
all  this  already  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  that 
He  even  elected  the  persons  themselves  in  whom  all  this  shall 
be  fulfilled  unto  salvation,  such  doctrine  will  be  "salutary  and 
consolatory"  for  me  —  and  this  not  again  election  as  distin- 
guished from  the  gospel,  but  "this  doctrine,"  or  as  §  14  of  the 


Thesis  III.  663 

Sol.  Decl.  has  it:  "The  entire  doctrine  .  .  .  pertaining  to  our 
redemption,  call,  righteousness,  and  salvation."  "Useful  and 
<:onsolatory"  not  because  I  have  thus  learned  to  know  a  dif- 
ferent source  from  the  universal  love  of  God  and  the  wounds 
of  Christ  from  wliich  my  salvation,  and  just  mine,  is  said  to  flow, 
.as  Missouri  and  the  Calvinists  dream;  but  "salutary  and  con- 
solatory" because  I  now,  as  it  were,  look  more  deeply  into  the 
true  source  of  salvation,  when  I  see  that  even  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world  God  has  made  provision  for  my  salvation 
and  for  all  the  means  of  salvation,  that,  as  the  Sol.  Decl.  declares, 
§  45,  Tie  "was  so  solicitous  concerning  the  conversion,  right- 
-eousness,  and  salvation  of  every  Christian,  and  so  faithfully  pro- 
vided therefor,  that  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid 
He  deliberated  concerning  it,  and  in  His  purpose  ordained  how 
He  would  bring  me  thereto  and  preserve  me  therein." 

This  is  a  passage  Missouri  likes  especially  to  adduce  for 
its  election  unto  faith.  But  it  does  not  say  that  God  made  such 
provision  for  the  conversion  only  of  the  elect,  but  for  the  con- 
version, etc.,  "of  every  Christian."  And  God  has  established  the 
means  of  grace,  as  we  saw  in  thesis  7,  not  for  the  Christians 
alone,  but  for  all  men  alike.  Here,  however,  the  word  is  "of 
every  Christian"  because  the  passage  speaks  of  the  consolation. 
Those  who  are  not  Christians  cannot  console  themselves  with 
eternal  election.  But  those  who  are  Christians  can  all  console 
themselves  with  the  fact,  that  from  eternity  God  "so  faithfully 
provided  therefor,"  i.  e.  for  their  conversion.  "Also,  that  He 
wished  to  secure  my  salvation  so  well  and  certainly  that  since, 
through  the  weakness  and  wickedness  of  our  flesh,  it  could 
easily  be  lost  from  our  hands,  or  through  craft  and  might  of 
the  devil  and  the  world  be  torn  or  removed  therefrom,  in  His 
-eternal  purpose,  which  cannot  fail  or  be  overthrown"  (although 
we  ourselves  can  turn  away,  §  82,  whereby,  however,  the  pur- 
pose would  not  be  overthrown,  since  it  is  not  His  purpose  to 
save  wilful  despisers  of  His  grace),  "He  ordained  it,  and  placed 
it  for  preservation  in  the  almighty  hand  of  our  Savior  Jesus 
Christ,  from  which  no  one  can  pluck  us  (John  10,  28).  Hence 
Paul  also  says  (Rom.  8,  28,  39):  Because  we  have  been  called 
according  to  the  purpose  of  God,  who  will  separate  us  from  the 
love  of  God  in  Christ?" 

God  Himself  has  provided  everything,  there  is  nothing  left 
for  us  to  do,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word  "all  things  are  ready." 


664  A  Testimo7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

Christ,  the  Son  of  God  and  our  Savior,  sits  at  the  right  hand 
of  God,  and  has  all  His  and  our  foes  beneath  His  feet.  All 
power  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is  given  to  Him,  and  besides  He 
intercedes  for  us  with  His  powerful  prayers.  This  is  fulness 
of  consolation.  And  in  this  way  this  doctrine  is  useful  and 
consolatory.  But  the  consolation  sought  in  election  by  Mis- 
souri, namely  that  they  cannot  possibly  be  lost,  even  though 
they  should  again  fall  into  grossest  sin  —  this  consolation  no 
sober  Christian  desires  to  have.  He  is  sure  of  the  grace  of 
God  in  Christ,  and  in  tliis  he  rejoices;  he  knows  too  that  God 
v/ill  omit  nothing,  and  this  he  knows  for  the  very  reason,  that 
all  the  promises  of  God  regarding  preservation  in  faith  apply 
to'  every  Christian,  even  to  those  who  through  their  own  guilt 
fall  away,  and  therefore  election  in  no  way  troubles  his  heart 
except  in  the  hour  of  temptation;  he  has  a  straight  path  before 
him,  although  one  that  is  also  strait,  and  he  knows  with  uncon- 
ditional certainty  that  this  path  leads  to  heaven.  Although  he 
does  not  see  the  end  of  that  path  at  present,  he  knows  that  by 
daily  contrition  and  repentance  he  draws  nigh  to  that  blessed 
end  step  by  step,  and  is  already  saved,  yet  saved  by  hope,  Rom. 
8,  24.  Missouri  is  not  in  this  blessed  position.  It  has  two 
ways  to  heaven,  the  universal  counsel  of  grace,  by  which  a  per- 
son may  indeed  obtain  faith  and  be  preserved  for  40  or  50  years; 
but  this  way  does  not  reach  the  blessed  goal  entirely,  it  lacks 
the  grace  of  perseverance  —  and  the  second  which  is  the  par- 
ticular counsel  of  election;  this  alone  leads  completely  to  the 
goal.  Evidently,  Missouri  is  compelled  from  the  very  start  to 
search  out  on  which  of  these  two  ways  it  is  traveling;  constantly 
attempts  to  see  the  end  of  its  way  from  the  beginning,  i.  e.  to 
become  certain  of  its  election;  clambers  up  steep  bights,  gazes 
out  into  the  gray  mists,  and  declares:  This  is  the  wonderful 
mystery  that  hovers  over  us,  yea  over  us  especially!  and  looks 
down  VN^th  pity  upon  the  pilgrims  "wearily  plodding  along'^ 
deep  down  in  the  valley  and  perhaps  imagining  that  this  valley 
road  is  the  only  safe  one  to  heaven!  Well,  dear  friends,  we 
hope  to  see  you  clamber  down  again  and  join  us  in  the  valley; 
perhaps  the  hour  of  death  will  teach  you  to  come  down.  Mean- 
while, be  careful  not  to  lose  sight  altogether  of  the  universal 
way  of  salvation,  lest  you  fail  to  find  it  again  in  the  hour  of  need. 
We  have  already  discussed  thesis  11  of  the  Epitome.  For 
the  sake  of  continuity  we  repeat  it  again :  — 


Thesis  III.  665 

11)  "That,  however,  many  are  called,  few  are  chosen,  does 
not  niean  that  God  is  unwilling  that  all  should  be  saved,  but 
the  reason  is  that  they  either  do  not  at  all  hear  God's  Word,  but 
wilfully  despise  it,  close  their  ears  and  harden  their  hearts,  and 
in  thi>  manner  foreclose  the  ordinary  way  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
so  that  He  cannot  efifect  His  work  in  them,  or,  when  it  is  heard, 
they  consider  it  of  no  account,  and  do  not  heed  it.  For  this 
not  God  or  His  election,  but  their  wickedness,  is  responsible." 

The  importance  of  this  thesis  will  be  apparent  to  all  who 
have  noted  the  fundamental  thought  the  Confession  desires  to 
convey.  According  to  thesis  9,  if  we  would  learn  the  "true  judg- 
ment concerning  election,"  we  must  above  all  begin  by  learning 
from  the  Gospel  of  Christ  that  God  is  not  willing  that  any  sliould 
perish.  This  is  not,  as  our  opponents  claim,  something  which 
must  also  be  believed,  although  impossible  of  being  harmonized 
with  the  doctrine  of  election — no;  this  is  in  such  perfect  "har- 
mony" with  election  that  it  constitutes  the  very  sun  and  center  of 
the  whole  doctrine  of  election.  For  me  everything  depends  on 
knowing  whether,  when  God  selected  the  persons  for  salvation, 
He  proceeded  according  to  His  universal  love,  which  He  oiTers 
me  in  the  Gospel,  or  whether  He  narrowed  this  love  in  making  the 
selection.  The  question  is  by  no  means  useless  or  presumptuous, 
why  God  did  not  ordain  all  men  unto  salvation;  on  the  contrary, 
it  refers  to  the  very  foundation  of  our  faith.  Our  opponents  tell 
us  not  to  bother  about  the  fate  of  the  non-elect,  but  to  be  satisfied 
with  our  own  salvation.  That  is  exceedingly  cool  language;  and 
they  pretend  great  humility  and  resignation  in  not  attempting  to 
scrutinize  the  secret  counsel  of  God.  But,  but  the  great  ques- 
tion is:  Does  this,  why  God  elected  only  a  few,  belong  to  His 
secret  counsel?  And  secondly,  the  question  arises — which  our 
opponents  have  not  as  yet  answered  satisfactorily:  How  am  I  to 
know  that  God  really  intends  to  save  me,  when,  in  the  very  thing 
which  is  all-decisive.  He  did  not  proceed  according  to  what  He 
has  revealed  concerning  Himself?  I  have  received  no  revela- 
tion which  temporary  believers  have  not  likewise  received.  I 
am  therefore  in  the  same  boat  with  them,  and  cannot  say:  I 
will  not  bother  about  them  when  their  boat  sinks.  If  the  fault 
of  their  non-election  lies  in  them,  if  this  is  a  fault  we  can  avoid 
through  the  grace  of  God,  then  indeed  I  have  all  reason  to  be 
afraid  of  my  flesh  and  blood,  which  is  no  better  than  that  of  other 


66Q  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

people.  But  then  I  need  not  doubt  concerning  God's  gracious 
will.  The  boat  itself  does  not  sink;  they  who  perish  are  lost  by 
jumping  overboard  of  their  own  accord.  But  if  it  is  a  mystery  of 
the  divine  will,  why  in  the  all-decisive  moment  many  were  omitted, 
even  such  as  are  faithful  Christians  for  40  or  50  years,  then — 
where  am  I  to  find  a  solid  hold? 

Well,  our  Confession  knows  nothing  of  any  such  mystery. 
It  takes  as  the  foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  election  God's  uni- 
versal will  of  grace,  as  we  have  seen  above,  and  now  proceeds 
to  answer  the  question  in  thesis  11,  why  only  a  few  are  elected. 
The  idea  is  "not  that  God  is  unwilling  that  all  should  be  saved"; 
the  cause  for  the  election  of  only  a  few  is  that  many  wilfully  de- 
spise the  divine  Word,  harden  their  hearts,  etc.  This  is  pre- 
cisely what  we  "opponents"  say.  Whereas  our  Confession  an- 
swers the  extremely  important  question,  Alissouri  declares,  it 
does  not  know  why  God  did  not  elect  the  rest,  thus  grossly  con- 
tradicting the  Confession.  Then  they  go  about  to  twist  and  turn 
the  words  of  the  Confession,  as  though  these  words  do  not  give 
the  reason,  why  only  a  few  are  elected,  but  simply  mean  to  show 
Vv^hy  God  saves  only  a  few  in  time.  He  does  not  save  the  greater 
number,  they  say,  because  they  do  not  believe;  they  do  not  attain 
constant  faith  because  they  despise  the  Word  and  resist  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Yet,  they  claim,  God  could  have  prevented  this  action, 
if  He  had  elected  them.  But  the  reason,  why  He  did  not  elect 
them,  they  claim  not  to  know!  It  is  easy  for  any  one  to  see  that 
they  shamefully  pervert  the  words:  "That,  however,  many  are 
called,  few  are  chosen,  does  not  mean  that  God  is  unwilling  that 
all  should  be  saved,  but  the  reason  is,  etc."  It  is  certainly  beyond 
comprehension  how  any  sensible  person  can  refer  these  latter 
words  to  the  foregoing,  "unwilling  that  all  should  be  saved." 
The  point  at  issue  is  evidently  the  correct  interpretation  of  the 
passage:  Many  are  called,  few  are  chosen.  The  Confession 
begins  by  warding  ofT  a  false  interpretation:  This  does  not  mean 
that  God  is  unwilling  that  all  should  be  saved.  Thereupon  the 
correct  explanation  is  introduced  by  "but":  "but  the  reason  is.'' 
The  passage  which  is  to  be  explained  Missouri  passes  by,  and 
refers  the  explanation  given,  to  the  second  clause,  which  clause 
is  not  meant  to  be  explained  at  all  in  the  Confession,  but  to  be 
totally  and  completely  rejected!     This  exegetical  feat  was  per- 


Thesis  III.  667 

formed   by   P.   Stoeckhardt  in   Chicago,  and  the   other   savants 
accepted  it  in  silence! 

But,  to  be  sure,  they  know  what  is  at  stake.  This  thesis 
subverts  their  entire  doctrine  of  election.  Where  the  "reason" 
can  be  given,  the  mystery  disappears;  and  if  the  reason  for  the 
non-election  of  many  is  their  despising  the  Word,  then  God  con- 
sidered the  conduct  of  men  toward  the  means  of  grace  in  elec- 
tion, in  fact,  He  considered  persevering  faith,  for  this  is  the  "work 
of  the  Holy  Ghost",  which  He  cannot  effect  in  those  who  wilfully 
despise  the  Word.  Furthermore,  if  the  Holy  Ghost  cannot  effect 
His  work  in  certain  people  then  there  is  no  so-called  free  election 
imto  faith,  as  Missouri  dreams.  Even  if  we  would  explain  the 
phrase,  "election  unto  faith",  correctly  and  would  then  suffer  it 
to  pass,  the  explanation  would  have  to  declare  that  God  elected 
all  those  unto  faith — of  whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would  not 
foreclose  the  ordinary  way  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  a  word,  thesis 
11  of  our  Confession  also  upsets  the  Missourian  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion. Not  a  particle  is  left  standing.  Missouri's  fundamental 
principles  are  false;  its  doctrine  of  predestination  stands  outside 
of  the  revealed  Gospel,  therefore  every  letter  of  it  must  neces- 
sarily be  false;  and  even  the  correct  expressions  which  Missouri 
still  retains  receive  a  false  construction  in  their  new  connection, 
viz.  "God  has  elected  in  grace,"  which  Missouri  still  uses.  Mis- 
souri does  not  mean  the  grace  which  Christ  has  obtained  for  all 
sinners,  but  a  particular,  special  grace  of  eleciion.  God  has 
elected  in  Christ;  this  is  not  to  signify  that  God  considered  who 
would  be  in  Christ  through  faith,  as  the  phrase  is  used  for  instance 
in  Rom.  8,  1:  "There  is  no  condemnation  to  them  which  are  in 
Christ  Jesus."  Of  what  benefit  are  the  orthodox  phrases  when 
retained,  as  long  as  their  orthodox  signification  is  explained  away? 
Thesis  12  of  the  Epitome  reads  as  follows: — 
12)  "Moreover,  a  Christian  should  apply  himself  to  the 
article  concerning  the  eternal  election  of  God,  so  far  as  it  has 
been  revealed  in  God's  Word,  which  presents  Christ  to  us  as  the 
Book  of  Life,  which,  by  the  preaching  of  the  holy  Gospel,  He 
opens  and  spreads  out  to  us,  as  it  is  written:  Whom  He  did 
predestinate,  them  He  also  called.  In  Him,  therefore,  we  should 
seek  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father,  who,  in  His  eternal  divine 
counsel,  determined  that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those 
who  acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on   Him. 


668  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctri7ie,  Etc. 

Other  thoughts  are  to  be  entirely  banished,  as  they  proceed  not 
from  God,  but  from  the  suggestion  of  Satan,  whereby  he  attempts 
to  weaken  or  to  entirely  remove  from  us  the  glorious  consolation 
which  we  have  in  this  salutary  doctrine,  viz-,  that  we  know  that 
out  of  pure  grace,  without  any  merit  of  our  own,  we  have  been 
elected  in  Christ  to  eternal  life,  and  that  no  one  can  pluck  us  out 
of  His  hand;  as  He  has  promised  this  gracious  election  not  only 
with  mere  words,  but  has  also  certified  it  with  an  oath,  and  sealed 
it  with  the  holy  Sacraments,  which  we  can  call  to  -mind  in  our 
most  severe  temptations,  and  from  them  comfort  ourselves,  and 
thereby  quench  the  fiery  darts  of  the  devil." 

This  is  properly  the  end  of  the  discussion  itself;  theses  13 
and  14  contain  only  admonitions  and  applications. 

A  Christian  should  apply  himself  to  this  article  .  .  .  other 
thoughts  are  to  be  entirely  banished,  as  they  proceed  not  from 
God.  Then  the  chief  thoughts  are  again  repeated:  So  far  as 
election  is  revealed  in  God's  Word;  for  the  Word  presents  Christ 
to  us  as  the  Book  of  Life;  which,  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
He  opens  and  spreads  out  to  us,  i.  e.  from  the  Gospel  we  learn 
what  God  has  determined  in  Christ.  From  this  it  follows  that 
we  should  seek  election  in  Christ,  i.  e.  believe  in  Christ.  That 
this  is  meant  the  Sol.  Decl.  shows  in  §  66,  where  the  same  ex- 
pression occurs:  "Therefore  the  entire  Holy  Trinity,  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  direct  all  men  to  Christ  as  the  Book  of  Life,  in 
which  they" — all  men — "should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the 
Father."  This  can  only  mean  that  all  are  to  believe  in  Christ. 
Wherefore  thesis  12  at  once  proceeds:  "Who,  in  His  eternal 
divine  counsel  determined  that  He  would  save  no  one  except 
those  who  acknowledge  His  Son  Christ  and  truly  believe  on 
Him." 

In  brief,  then:  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  "all 
men" — whoever  does  not  believe  cannot  be  saved.  This  is  the 
way  in  which  the  counsel  of  God  in  Christ  is  opened  up  and 
spread  out  to  us  in  the  preaching  of  the  holy  Gospel.  All  other 
thoughts  are  to  be  entirely  banished;  that  is  all  we  know  of  elec- 
tion—it is,  as  has  been  said,  the  rule  according  to  which  God 
elected,  the  universal  will  of  grace  to  save  all  men,  yet  only 
through  faith  in  Christ.  This  agrees  with  thesis  9:  "The  true 
judgment  concerning  predestination  must  be  learned  alone  from 
the  holy  Gospel  concerning  Christ,  in  which  it  is  clearly  testified 


Thesis  III.  669 

that  God  hath  concluded  them  all  in  unbelief,  that  He  might  have 
mercy  upon  all,  and  that  He  is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish, 
but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance  and  believe  in  Christ." 
This  agrees  also  with  the  way  in  which  our  Confession  takes  up 
any  passage  from  the  Gospel,  even  though  not  a  word  be  said  of 
eternity,  or  of  certain  persons,  or  of  election,  and  declares  that  in 
all  such  passages  election  is  revealed;  viz.  §  65  of  the  Sol.  Decl. : 
"But  this  election  is  revealed  from  heaven  through  the  preached 
Word  when  the  Father  says:  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom 
I  am  well  pleased;  hear  ye  Him.  And  Christ  says:  Come  unto 
me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you 
rest.  And  concerning  tTie  Holy  Ghost  Christ  says:  He  shall 
glorify  me;  for  He  shall  receive  of  mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto 
you."  In  these  passages  election  is  revealed  to  us!  Yes,  says 
Missouri,  they  reveal  to  us,  the  elect,  that  we  are  elected.  Im- 
possible! for  the  Confession  at  once  continues:  "Therefore" — 
this  is  what  these  passages  show — "therefore  the  entire  Holy 
Trinity,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  direct  all  men  to  Christ 
,  .  .  for  it  has  been  decided  by  the  Father  from  eternity  that 
whom  He  would  save  He  would  save  through  Christ."  Nothing 
is  said  here  about  "certain  persons",  the  words  state  a  universal 
rule;  not  a  wonderful  mystery  regarding  certain  persons  "is  re- 
vealed from  heaven",  but  "the  mystery  which  hath  been  hid  from 
ages  and  from  generations,  but  now  is  made  manifest  to  His 
saints.  Col.  1,  26;  which  is  Christ  in  you,"  v.  27. 

Furthermore,  §  67:  "But  Christ"  (to  whom  all  men  are 
directed)  "as  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  who  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  has  published  to  us  the  will  of  the  Father,  and 
thus  also  our  eternal  election  to  eternal  life,  viz.  when  He  says* 
Repent  ye  and  believe  the  Gospel;  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at 
hand.  He  also  says:  This  is  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me, 
that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son  and  believeth  on  Him  mav 
have  everlasting  life.  And  again :  God  so  loved  the  world,  etc." 
The  Father's  will  Christ  has  revealed  to  us  (in  the  Gospel)  and 
thus  also  our  eternal  election.  But  what  is  the  Father's  will? 
"Repent  ye  and  believe" — "That  everv  one  which  seeth  the  Son 
and  believeth  on  Him  may  have  everlasting  life" — "God  so  loved 
the  world,  etc."  How  do  these  passages  reveal  to  us — to  "all 
men" — our  eternal  election?  The  rule,  according  to  which  God 
elected,  is  revealed  to  us.     He  who  cannot  see  that  must  be 


670  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

struck  with  special  blindness.  He  who  does  not  want  to  see  it  is 
beyond  help.  Should  not  St.  Louis  g-o  to  work  in  earnest  to 
bring  itself  into  "harmony"  with  the  Confession?  The  Confes- 
sion certainly  will  not  come  to  them,  they  must  return  to  the 
Confession,  for  they  have  left  it.  They  have  run  themselves  fast 
by  their  false  interpretation  of  §  8:  "Election  is  a  cause  which 
procures,  etc.,  our  salvation  and  all  that  pertains  thereto."  "Elec- 
tion" must  mean,  they  claim,  discretio  personarum,  the  myste- 
rious separation  of  persons;  it  "procures  our  salvation  and  all  that 
pertains  thereto"  must  mean:  God  has  elected  these  untQ  the  call 
and  unto  faith.  They  will  not  understand  that  the  very  things 
the  Confession  does  not  mean  by  "election"  is  the  separation  of 
persons,  but  first  of  all  and  above  all  the  universal  will  of  Sfrace,. 
the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  without  which  predestination  is  alto- 
gether inconceivable;  they  will  not  understand  this,  although  the- 
Confession  repeats  it  in  almost  every  paragraph.  They  cannot 
"harmonize"  what  the  Confession  says,  when  it  speaks  of  the 
election  of  a  "few",  and  brings  in  what  pertains  to  all,  and  vet 
they  themselves  cannot  deny  that  they  are  elected  "in  Christ." 
They  indeed  understand  this  expression  dififerently  from  the  way 
in  which  the  Churcli  has  understood  it  hitherto,  but  we  pass  this 
as  of  no  moment  for  the  present  question.  "In  Christ"  certainly 
signifies.  In  Him  who  is  the  Redeemer  of  all  men.  Surely  they 
will  not  divide  Christ  Himself?  However  artfully  they  may  twist 
the  little  word  "in",  surely  they  not  attempt  to  alter  anything  in 
"Christ."  Very  well  then,  as  long  as  they  do  not  deny  that  Christ 
is  the  Redeemer  of  all  men,  and  nevertheless  are  compelled  to 
take  Him  into  the  doctrine  of  election,  they  themselves  have 
something  in  the  doctrine  of  election  which  pertains  to  all  men. 
As  long  as  they  cannot  claim  a  special  redemption  of  the  elect — 
what  necessitates  their  claim  of  a  special  call? 

But  they  claim  to  have  irrefragable(?)  proof  for  this  asser- 
tion; for  does  not  §  5  of  the  Sol.  Deck  (thesis  4  of  the  Epit.)  read 
as  follows:  "The  eternal  election  of  God  or  predestination  per- 
tains not  at  the  same  time  to  the  godly  and  the  wicked"?  Refer- 
ence is  here  had  to  the  predestination  of  those  who  are  actually 
saved.  And  a  little  further  on  we  are  told  that  this  same  predes- 
tination is  a  cause  which  procures  our  salvation  and  whatever 
pertains  thereto.  The  call  through  the  Gospel,  taith,  and  per- 
severance  pertains   to    salvation.     All   this,    therefore,    Missouri 


Thesis  III.  671 

tells  us,  is  procured  and  wrought  by  predestination  "which  per- 
tains not  at  the  same  time  to  all  men."  Consequently,  God  must 
have  elected  and  predestinated — these  to  whom  election  pertains 
unto  all  this — just  these,  not  the  rest;  otherwise  predestination 
or  election  would  apply  to  all.  This  is  how  our  opponents  dem- 
onstrate and  prove  their  election  unto  faith. 

Now  all  this  has  a  very  fine  appearance,  and  they  have  suc- 
ceeded in  confounding  the  entire  synod  by  these  two  paragraphs, 
that  is  by  their  false  interpretation  of  them.  That  Dr.  Walther, 
although  originally  misunderstanding  §  8,  still  interpreted  it  in 
an  orthodox  way,  we  have  already  seen  when  we  spoke  of  his 
Postille. 

What  now  can  we  find  to  object  in  the  above  demonstra- 
tion? How  can  we  escape  its  conclusions?  How  much  do  we 
admit,  and  how  much  do  we  reject?  We  will  answer  clearly  and 
distincly;  but  to  preface  our  answer  we  will  state  a  few  general 
objections  against  the  argumentation,  which  perhaps  may  induce 
our  opponents  to  examme  our  answer  more  carefully  than  they 
have  done  hitherto.  1)  Such  a  predestination  of  some  certain 
persons  unto  the  call  and  unto  faith  is  nowhere  revealed  to  us  in 
the  Gospel  of  Christ.  Yet  the  Confession  states  that  election  is 
revealed  in  the  Gospel.  If  this  were  an  election  unto  the  call  and 
unto  faith  it  would  have  to  be  revealed  as  such  in  the  Gospel,  and 
that  too  in  the  passages  quoted  by  the  Confession:  This  is  my 
beloved  Son — Come  unto  me — Repent  ye — This  is  the  will  of — 
God  so  loved  the  world;  etc.  In  these  passages  election  is  re- 
vealed! 2)  Election  or  predestination  is  a  cause  which  procures 
and  works  our  salvation  and  whatever  pertains  thereto,  it  ac- 
cordingly procures  and  works  in  the  first  place  our  salvation  itself 
and  then  all  that  pertains  therto;  or  we  can  say  brietly,  it  procures 
all  that  was  and  that  is  necessary  to  save  sinners.  Redemption 
was  necessary  above  all  things  for  salvation,  not  merely  conver- 
sion and  preservation.  Our  Confession  proceeds  to  name  in 
order  all  the  different  things  "that  pertain  thereto",  and  begins 
by  naming  redemption.  Accordingly,  our  opponents  are  com- 
pelled to  assert  an  election  of  individual  persons  unto  renemp- 
tion  as  well  as  unto  the  call.  Do  they  want  this?  They  do  not. 
Therefore,  even  though  we  should  be  unable  to  disprove  and 
refute  their  deduction  above,  we  would  still  be  able  to  say:  You 
fall  into  the  same  ditch  you  have  dug  for  us.     Faith  is  not  the 


672  A  Testimo7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

only  thing  that  "pertains"  to  salvation,  but  above  all  redemption. 
If  then  you  prove  from  the  words  of  the  Confession  an  election 
of  some  unto  faith,  you  thereby  prove  in  the  same  way  an  election 
of  some  unto  redemption.  If  you  do  not  want  the  latter,  cease 
troubling-  us  with  the  former.  The  one  agrees  with  the  Gospel 
in  which  election  is  revealed  as  little  as  the  other.  Both  para- 
graphs must,  therefore,  certainly  mean  something  else.  And 
now  our  answer: — 

1)  Our  Confession  uses  tv/o  words,  "election"  and  "predesti- 
nation", as  synonymous,  and  defines  both  as  "God's  appomtment 
unto  salvation",  §  5. 

2)  By  this  appointment  unto  salvation  it  does  not  under- 
stand the  mere  discretio  personarum,  least  of  all  in  the  Missourian 
fashion.  The  "dis.  pers.",  i.  e.  the  separation  of  persons,  belongs 
to  God's  "appointment",  but  much  else  also  belongs  to  it,  and 
this  separation  is  not  by  far  the  foremost  part  of  the  "appoint- 
ment." §  13  and  14  states  that,  if  we  would  speak  concerning  the 
election  or  appointment  of  the  children  of  God  unto  eternal  life, 
we  are  to  speak  of  it  as  "the  counsel,  purpose,  and  ordination  of 
God  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  is  the  true  book  of  life,  has  been  revealed 
to  us  through  the  Word,  viz.  that  the  entire  doctrine  concerning 
the  purpose,  counsel,  will,  and  ordination  of  God  pertaining  to 
our  redemption,  call,  righteousness,  and  salvation  should  be  taken 
together  ....  that  God  in  His  purpose  and  counsel  decreed." 
Note  the  word  "decreed"  and  also  the  word  "ordination",  they  are 
one  and  the  same  with  "appointment",  in  German  "verordnet", 
"Verordnung."  The  contents  of  tlie  appointment  or  predestina- 
tion, which  the  Confession  takes  as  synonymous  with  "election," 
is  now  given.  What  then  did  God  appoint,  what  all  is  to  be  em- 
braced by  election  or  predestination?  Eight  eternal  decrees: 
1)  of  redemption;  2)  of  the  call;  3)  of  the  mission  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  for  conversion;  etc.;  8)  of  glorification  in  eternal  life. 
This  is  the  entire  counsel  of  salvation,  the  contents  of  the  whole 
gospel,  as  every  one  sees  at  a  glance.  All  this  "God  has  appointed 
in  His  purpose  and  counsel",  all  of  it  forms  the  contents  of  "God's 
appointment  unto  eternal  life",  which  is  also  designated  as  elec- 
tion or  predestination.     See  §  5. 

3)  Now  ifis  clear  how  §  8  must  be  understood:  Election  is 
a  cause  which  procures  and  works  our  salvation  and  all  that  per- 
tains thereto.  God  has  "appointed"  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world  redemption,  the  call,  conversion,  justification,  sanctification, 


Thesis  HI.  673 

preservation  in  faith,  and  finally  entrance  into  eternal  life;  and 
what  He  appoints  He  —  not  we  —  carries  out  in  time.  The 
meaning  of  §  9  is  therefore  beyond  all  doubt;  election  vel  praedes- 
tinatio,  that  is  "God's  appointment  unto  salvation"  includes  more 
than  the  discretio  personarum  of  Missouri. 

4)  Now  we  inquire  how  this  harmonizes  with  §  5,  which 
states  that  election  or  God's  appointment  to  salvation  does  not  at 
the  same  time  pertain  to  the  godly  and  the  wicked.  If  the  eight 
decrees  describe  the  universal  counsel  of  grace,  in  other  words, 
if  God's  eternal  election  vel  praedestinatio  embraces  the  universal 
counsel  of  grace  —  which  our  opponents  deny  —  which  we,  how- 
ever, have  proven  —  how  then  can  we  say  that  election  vel  prae- 
destinatio does  not  pertain  to  all  men?  Would  not  this  be  deny- 
ing that  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  pertains  to  all  men,  that 
all  are  redeemed,  called,  etc.?  This  is  what  our  opponents 
claim,  and  they  imagine  that  they  have  bound  us  fast.  And  yet 
the  case  is  very  simple.  This  "election  vel  praedestinatio"  em- 
braces eight  decrees.  The  eighth  reads:  "That  those  whom  He 
has  elected,  called,  and  justified.  He  would  eternally  save  and 
glorify  in  life  eternal."  This,  as  the  following  paragraph  shows 
clearly,  speaks  of  definite  persons  who  are  elected  and  appointed 
unto  eternal  life.  And  this  discretio  personarum  —  which  is  not 
at  all  mysterious,  but  is  instituted  according  to  the  order  pre- 
scribed in  the  foregoing  decrees  —  this  appointment  of  persons 
unto  eternal  life  belongs  also  to  election  vel  praedestinatio;  in 
fact  this  appointment  of  individual  definite  persons  has  furnished 
the  name  of  the  whole  series  of  decrees,  namely  election  or  predes- 
tination. Therefore,  even  though  a  person  should  be  redeemed, 
called,  and  converted,  election  or  predestination  will  not  for  that 
reason  alone  pertain  to  him,  unless  he  perseveres  and  thus  is 
brought  under  the  8th  decree.  The  universal  counsel  of  grace 
alone  is  not  "election  vel  praedestinatio",  although  it  constitutes 
the  order  and  the  rule  according  to  which  God  elected  and  predes- 
destinated;  and  in  so  far  the  Confession  can  say:  Election  is 
revealed  to  us  in  the  gospel,  for  instance  in  the  passage:  God  so 
loved  the  world  ....  that  whosoever  believeth  should  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  Here  we  have  the  universal  will 
of  grace  with  its  condition,  namely  those  who  believe  in  Christ 
shall  be  saved.  Here  we  have  the  rule  and  the  order  according 
to  which  God  saves  some  in  time  and  does  not  save  others ;  and 
at  the  same  time,  since  God's  will  is  immutable,  we  have  here  the 


674  A  Testhnony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

rule  and  order  according  to  which  He  elected  some  in  eternity 
unto  salvation  and  did  not  elect  others  —  otherwise  the  Confes- 
sion could  not  say :  Eternal  election  is  revealed  to  us  in  this  pass- 
age and  in  the  gospel  in  general.  He  who  believes  not,  or  who 
believes  not  till  the  end  (for  this  too  is  the  sense  of  the  passage)^ 
is  included  indeed  in  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  and  in  the  rule 
contained  therein,  but  is  not  elected  or  appointed  of  God  unto 
eternal  life.  In  a  word,  "election  vel  praedestinatio"  embraces 
the  universal  counsel  of  grace  together  with  the  appointment  of 
those  persons  who  are  actually  saved.  An  election  or  appoint- 
ment of  persons  unto  salvation  without  the  universal  counsel  of 
grace  is  altogether  inconceivable.  Yet  the  latter  standing  by 
itself  is  not  yet  "election  vel  praedestinatio." 

Thus  election  pertains,  according  to  §  5,  not  to  all  at  the  same 
time,  and  is  nevertheless  the  cause,  which  according  to  §  8  pro- 
cures our  salvation,  and  is  prepared  for  all. 

If  our  opponents  cannot  or  — will  not  acknowledge  this  as 
the  correct  solution,  they  may  seek  the  solution  themselves.  They 
shall  never  disprove  that  "election  vel  praedestinatio"  is  the  cause 
also  of  redemption,  according  to  §  8  and  §§  13-24.  But  how  this 
can  be  made  to  harmonize  with  the  statement  that  election  vel 
praedestinatio  is  occupied  only  with  the  elect  —  this  question 
they  may  answer  for  themselves;  and  it  is  precisely  the  question 
they  direct  to  us.  Their  writings  show  that  they  have  constantly 
felt  the  difficulty,  and  the  same  thing  appeared  at  the  Conference 
in  Ft.  Wayne.  They  do  not  know  how  to  find  a  place  for  universal 
redemption  in  election  vel  praedestinatio.  At  one  time  they  say 
it  is  the  foundation  of  predestination,  which  is  certainly  correct, 
when  the  word  election,  as  is  done  by  our  dogmaticians,  is  taken 
in  its  narrowest  signification  as  only  the  selection  of  persons. 
But  in  this  case  our  opponents  cannot  say  that  they  are  speaking 
after  the  manner  of  the  F.  C. ;  in  this  case  they  cannot  at  all  say 
that  election  is  a  cause,  and  our  salvation  that  which  is  caused, 
which  also  lies  in  the  words  "redemption  is  the  foundation."  To 
speak  of  three  causes  of  salvation:  God's  grace,  redemption,  and 
predestination,  is  altogether  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Confession.  Moreover,  the  Confession  does  not  name  redemp- 
tion as  the  foundation  of  election  or  of  the  appointment  unto  sal- 
vation, but  as  the  first  thing  which  has  been  "appointed"  (or 
ordained)  in  this  appointment;  as  we  have  been  repeating  and 
re-repeating  to  our  opponents  now  for  over  two  years;   and  the 


Thesis  III.  675 

only  thing  they  are  able  to  reply  is  to  rehash  their  empty  asser- 
tions. Only  one  attempt  was  made  at  a  solution,  by  P.  Stoeck- 
hardt  in  "L.  u.  W.",  May,  1880,  and  to  this  we  referred  above  when 
we  stated  that  at  one  time  our  opponents  made  redemption  the 
foundation.  He  writes:  "Redemption,  which  pertains  to  the 
whole  human  race,  is  at  the  same  time  the  means  for  carrying 
out  the  counsel  of  election."  That  certainly  is  very,  very  dubious 
language.  Then  perhaps  the  counsel  of  election,  i.  e.  the  inten- 
tion to  save  only  a  few,  was  the  original  thought  of  God?  The 
thought  need  not  surprise  us  in  our  opponents,  for  they  are  con- 
stantly being  pushed  by  their  doctrine  to  speak  of  redemption  as 
though  it  has  been  intended  from  the  very  start  only  for  a  few. 
And  indeed  it  cannot  matter  much  after  all  they  have  already  said; 
for,  if  God  from  the  very  start  limited  the  grace  of  conversion  and 
preservation  only  to  a  few,  for  all  the  rest  "everything  will  be  of 
no  avail"  anyhow,  not  only  the  Word,  Absolution,  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, but  also  redemption.  Our  opponents  cannot  deceive  us  by 
their  attempt  at  holding  fast:  "Redemption  pertains  to  the  whole 
human  race";  for  what  can  redemption  benefit  those  who  are  not 
included  in  the  "counsel  of  election"  which  they  say  is  to  be  car- 
ried out  by  redemption  as  a  "means"?  At  any  rate  "means  for 
carrying  out  the  counsel  of  election"  is  never  identical  with  "foun- 
dation of  the  counsel  of  election."  This  is  the  way  our  opponents 
contradict  themselves,  and  that  in  the  very  chief  questions  of  the 
whole  doctrine.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  their  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion is  false  in  general.  They  fail  to  agree  with  the  dogmaticians 
by  separating  from  predestination  the  foresight  of  faith,  in  the  sig- 
nification generally  given  to  this  term.  They  likewise  fail  to  agree 
with  the  F.  C.  by  separating  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  from 
predestination.  Thus  they  have  left  to  constitute  what  they  call 
"election"  the  mere  naked  discretio  personarum,  the  mere  "re- 
view", as  it  is  called  in  §  9  of  F.  C.,  according  to  the  absolute  will 
of  God.  In  general  we  must  say,  they  grope  about  altogether  in 
the  dark,  since  they  will  not  agree  that  election  is  revealed  in  the 
gospel;  and  now  they  rejoice  in  a  "wonderful  mystery  hovering 
over  certain  persons."  He  who  likes  may  join  them!  We  find 
our  election  revealed  everywhere  in  the  gospel,  for  instance  in  the 
passage:  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only-begotten 
Son  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  life.  And  should  the  question  be  asked  of  us,  as  it 
was  asked  of  the  writer  the  other  day  by  a  Missourian  pastor: 


676  A  Testunotiy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

■"What  does  the  gospel  benefit  me,  if  God  does  not  give  me  faith?" 
(the  question  precisely  as  here  given  and  repeated  a  second  time 
with  emphasis!)  we  simply  declare  such  language  to  be  blas- 
phemy; for  to  every  man  to  whom  God  gives  the  gospel  He 
thereby  also,  as  much  as  lieth  in  Him,  gives  faith.  But  this  is 
what  the  doctrine  of  Missouri  concerning  election  unto  faith 
really  implies;  there  is  always  the  question  whether,  when  a  man 
hears  the  gospel  God  will  really  give  him  faith  and  preserve  him 
in  that  faith.  The  question  asked  by  the  Mo.  pastor  is  evidently 
only  another  form  for  the  old  assertion,  if  I  do  not  belong  to  the 
elect,  I  may  hear  God's  Word  (the  gospel)  ever  so  diligently  .... 
it  is  all  of  no  avail. 

For  an  unprejudiced  reader  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever 
as  to  the  meaning  of  our  Confession  when  it  declares,  election  is 
revealed  in  the  gospel,  or  Christ  has  proclaimed  to  us  the  will  of 
the  Father  and  thus  also  our  eternal  election,  when  He  declares: 
Repent  ye  and  believe  the  gospel.  If  this  is  to  mean,  as  Mo.  must 
interpret  it:  Ye  that  hear  this  are  actually  appointed  unto  eternal 
life!  then  all  who  do  hear  it  would  thus  be  appointed,  all  the  called. 
But  Mo.  itself  does  not  want  this,  nor  would  it  agree  with  the 
words  of  Christ:  Many  are  called,  few  are  chosen.  Hence  the 
words  can  only  mean :  It  is  God's  will  that  all  men  should  repent 
and  be  saved.  And  they  who  do  repent  and  believe  in  Christ, 
but  only  they,  are  actually  elected  and  appointed  unto  salvation. 
This  was  the  rule  employed  in  eternal  election,  which  is  the  pur- 
pose and  will  of  God  according  to  which  He  saves  in  time  and 
elected  unto  salvation  in  eternity.  The  purpose  of  election,  the 
rule  of  election  is  revealed  to  us  in  such  passages.  If  this  is  not 
revealed  in  them,  then  they  contain  no  revelation  at  all  concern- 
ing election;  Missouri  does  not  know  what  to  do  with  all  these 
declarations  of  the  Confession,  except  to  pretend  that  the  Con- 
fession would  have  the  elect  become  certain  of  their  election 
through  such  passages!  "The  Father's  will  and  thus  also  our 
election"  is  to  mean  "the  personal  certainty  of  the  elect"!  Such 
is  the  renowned  faithful  adherence  of  modern  Mo.  to  the  Con- 
fession; and  all  who  do  not  chime  in  are  miserable  fellows  who 
have  broken  their  ordination  vows!  Very  well,  gentlemen,  the 
day  of  settlement  is  coming  fast;  we  are  in  a  position  to  await 
undisturbed  what  it  shall  bring  forth ! 

We  now  need  merely  to  quote  the  passage  from  the  Sol. 


Thesis  III.  677 

Decl.,  which  summarizes  precisely  what  election  "comprises"  and 
what  "belongs  thereto."     It  is  found  in  §§  13-24. 

"Therefore,  if  we  wish  to  think  or  speak  correctly  and  profit- 
ably concerning  eternal  election,  or  the  predestination  and  fore- 
ordination  of  the  children  of  God  to  eternal  life,  we  should  accus- 
tom ourselves  not  to  speculate  concerning  the  mere,  secret,  con- 
cealed, inscrutible  foreknowledge  of  God,  but  how  the  counsel, 
purpose,  and  ordination  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  is  the  true 
Book  of  Life,  has  been  revealed  to  us  through  the  Word,  viz.  that 
the  entire  doctrine  concerning  the  purpose,  counsel,  will  and 
ordination  of  God  pertaining  to  our  redemption,  call,  righteous- 
ness, and  salvation,  should  be  taken  together;  as  Paul  has  treated 
and  explained  this  article  (Rom.  8,  Eph.  1),  as  also  Christ  in  the 
parable  (Matt.  22),  namely  that  God  in  His  purpose  and  counsel 
decreed : — 

"1.  That  the  human  race  should  be  truly  redeemed  and 
reconciled  with  God  through  Christ,  who,  by  His  faultless  obedi- 
ence, sufifering  and  death,  has  merited  for  us  righteousness  which 
avails  before  God,  and  eternal  life." 

"2.  That  such  merit  and  benefits  of  Christ  should  be  offered,, 
presented,  and  distributed  to  us  through  His  Word  and  sacra- 
ments." 

"3,  That  He  would  be  elftcacious  and  active  in  us  by  His 
Holy  Ghost,  through  the  Word,  when  it  is  preached,  heard  and 
pondered,  to  convert  hearts  to  true  repentance  and  preserve  them 
in  the  true  faith." 

"4.  That  all  those  who,  in  true  repentance,  receive  Christ 
by  a  true  faith  He  would  justify  and  receive  into  grace,  adoption, 
and  inheritance  of  eternal  life," 

"5.  That  those  also  who  are  thus  justified  He  would  sanctify 
in  love,  as  St.  Paul  says  (Eph.  1,  4)." 

"6.  That,  in  their  great  weakness.  He  also  would  defend 
them  against  the  devil,  the  world,  and  the  flesh,  and  would  rule 
and  lead  them  in  His  ways,  and  when  they  stumble  would  raise 
them  again,  and  vmder  the  cross  and  in  temptation  would  comfort 
and  preserve  them." 

"7.  That  the  good  work  which  He  has  begun  in  them  He 
would  strengthen,  increase,  and  support  to  the  end,  if  they  observe 
God's  Word,  pray  diligently,  abide  in  God's  goodness,  and  faith- 
fully use  the  gifts  received." 


678  A  Testimony  Agai?ist  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

"8.  That  those  whom  He  has  elected,  called,  and  justified, 
He  would  eternally  save  and  glorify  in  life  eternal." 

"And  that  in  His  counsel,  purpose,  and  ordination  He  pre- 
pared salvation  not  only  in  general,  but  in  grace  considered  and 
chose  to  salvation  each  and  every  person  of  the  elect,  who  shall 
be  saved  through  Christ,  and  ordained  that  in  the  way  just  men- 
tioned He  would  by  His  grace,  gifts,  and  efficacy  bring  them 
thereto,  and  aid,  promote,  strengthen,  and  preserve  them." 

"All  this,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  comprised  in  the 
doctrine  concerning  the  eternal  election  of  God  to  adoption  and 
eternal  salvation,  and  should  be  comprised  with  it,  and  not 
omitted,  when  we  speak  of  God's  purpose,  predestination,  elec- 
tion, and  ordination  to  salvation.  And  when,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  thoughts  concerning  this  article  are  thus  formed,  we 
can,  by  God's  grace,  simply  adapt  ourselves  to  it." 

The  preceding  8  eternal  decrees  evidently  state  the  entire 
contents  of  the  gospel.  They  show  as  well  how  God  prepared 
salvation  for  all  sinners,  so  that  all  can  actually  be  converted, 
justified,  and  saved,  as  also  how  God  has  determined  to  save 
and  glorify  in  eterna'l  life  only  those  who  by  true  repentance 
and  faith  receive  Christ,  and  persevere  in  such  faith  till  the  end. 
They  also  show  how  first  of  all  we  come  to  this  faith  and  then 
how  we  are  preserved  therein,  namely  through  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  alone  without  any  co-operation  of  man,  yet  not 
without  the  use  of  the  means  of  grace;  for  in  the  third  decree, 
which  treats  of  conversion,  we  read:  "When  the  Word  is 
preached,  heard  and  pondered";  and  in  the  seventh,  treating  of 
preservation:  "If  they  observe  God's  Word,"  etc.  Accordingly 
our  salvation  from  beginning  to  end  lies  in  God's  hand,  and 
there  can  be  no  thought  of  merit  or  co-operation  on  our  part. 
None  of  these  decrees,  however,  shows  that  the  grace  of  God 
unto  conversion  and  preservation  is  irresistible,  nor  that  God 
has  unconditionally  elected  a  certain  number  of  men  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  rest  unto  conversion,  and  has  ordained  that  these 
must  necessarily  be  converted,  as  Missouri  would  have  it.  There 
is  a  passage  in  the  Confession  which,  when  torn  from  its  con- 
nection, appears  to  favor  this  view,  and  our  opponents  have 
utilized  it  abundantly.  It  reads  as  follows  (§  40):  "But  as  God 
has  ordained  in  His  counsel  that  the  Holy  Ghost  should  call, 
enlighten,  and  convert  the  elect  through  the  Word,"  .  .  .  He 
will,   etc.     But   the   connection   shows   abundantly   how    this   is 


Thesis  III.  679 

meant,  when  we  read  in  what  precedes:  "Therefore  the  opinion 
should  in  no  way  be  entertained  .  .  .  that  these  should  be  the 
•elect,  even  though  they  despise  the  Word  of  God,  reject,  calum- 
niate, and  persecute  it,  or  when  they  hear  it  harden  their  hearts, 
resist  the  Holy  Ghost,  etc.  —  But  as  God  has  ordained  in  His 
counsel  that  the  Holy  Ghost  should  call,  enlighten,  and  convert 
the  elect  through  the  Word,  and  that  all  those  who,  through 
true  faith,  receive  Christ  He  will  justify  and  save;  He  has  also 
determined  in  His  counsel  that  He  will  harden,  reprobate,  and 
•condemn  those  who  are  called  through  the  Word,  if  they  reject 
the  Word  and  resist  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  wishes  to  be  efficacious 
and  to  work  in  them  through  the  Word/' 

The  elaboration  of  the  thought  in  the  sentence,  "and  that 
all  those  who,  through  true  faith,  receive  Christ  He  will  justify 
and  save,"  already  shows  that  this  passage  does  not  speak  of 
an  unconditional  decree  regarding  a  few  persons  elected  from 
the  start,  but  of  the  universal  rule  and  ordination  of  God  accord- 
ing to  which  the  wilful  despisers  of  His  grace  cannot  be  the 
elect.  Paragraph  40  has  the  same  meaning  as  §  66:  "For  it 
has  been  decided  by  the  Father  from  eternity  that  whom  He 
would  save  He  would  save  through  faith  in  Christ";  and  as 
the  paragraph  in  the  Epitome:  "Who,  in  His  eternal  divine 
counsel,  determined  that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those 
who  acknowledge  His  Son  Christ  and  truly  believe  on  Him." 
But  that  God  elected  unto  all  this  from  the  start  only  a  certain 
number,  Missouri  will  never  prove  from  the  Confession,  nor 
from  the  gospel,  in  which  election  is  revealed. 

The  entire  eight  decrees  show  that  at  no  point  God  excluded 
any  man  who  does  not  exclude  himself.  God  determined  in  the 
iirst  place  to  redeem  the  entire  human  race.  Here,  then,  no 
man  is  excluded.  Secondly  He  determined  to  "offer,  present, 
and  distribute"  this  benefit  through  the  means  of  grace.  Mis- 
souri indeed  claims  that  "to  us"  refers  only  to  the  elect,  so 
that  the  decree  would  read:  "That  such  merit  and  benefit  of 
Christ  should  be  offered,  presented,  and  distributed  to  the  elect 
through  His  Word  and  Sacrament."  In  the  same  way  all  the 
following  decrees  are  perverted;  they  are  all  to  refer  only  to 
the  elect.  "That  He  would  be  efficacious  and  active  in  us  by 
His  Holy  Ghost  through  the  Word,  when  it  is  preached,  heard, 
and  pondered,"  etc.,  is  to  mean:  That  He  would  be  efficacious 
in  the  elect.     Again:    "That  all  those  who,  in  true  repentance, 


680  A  Testiviony  Against  the  False  Doctrine^  Etc. 

receive  Christ  by  true  faith  He  would  justify  and  receive  into 
grace,"  etc.,  is  to  mean:  That  He  would  justify  the  elect.  In 
such  a  bold  and  gross  way  Missouri  perverts  the  Confession,, 
and  in  this  way  it  proved  its  election  unto  the  call  and  unto  faith! 

The  very  words  themselves  will  not  admit  of  such  a  con- 
struction; as  the  benefits  of  Christ  have  been  obtained  for  the 
human  race,  so  according  to  God's  purpose  they  are  to  be 
olYered,  presented,  and  distributed  to  all  men  in  common,  as 
also  Christ  immediately  after  His  resurrection  commanded: 
Preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature. 

But  since  no  man  by  his  own  reason  or  strength  could 
believe  the  gospel,  God  has  made  the  necessary  provision;  He 
has  determined  to  convert  the  hearts  of  men  by  His  Holy  Ghost 
through  the  Word,  when  it  is  preached,  heard,  and  pondered. 
The  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  also  is  thus  promised  not  merely  tO' 
certain  persons  elected  thereto,  but  to  the  Word;  as  also  we 
have  seen  in  the  Epitome:  "He  promises  besides"  —  in  addition 
to  the  hearing  of  the  Word,  no  matter  who  hears  and  considers 
it — "the  power  and  efficiency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  divine 
assistance  for  perseverance  and  eternal  salvation."  He  who  does 
not  hear  the  Word,  or  when  he  hears  it  resists  wilfully  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  remains,  to  be  sure,  without  repent- 
ance and  faith,  and  thereby  excludes  himself  from  all  the  fol- 
lowing decrees  of  God.  There  are  unfortunately  many  who  do 
this,  and  so  the  fourth  decree  already  makes  a  distinction  among 
men:  "That  all  those  who"  —  not  all  men,  but  only  all  those 
who  —  "in  true  repentance  receive  Christ  by  a  true  faith  He 
would  justify  and  receive  into  grace,  adoption,  and  inheritance 
of  eternal  life."  If  this  were  to  mean  only  the  elect,  as  Missouri 
pretends,  it  would  be  nonsense,  for  the  words  are  "all  those  who 
receive  Christ  by  a  true  faith  He  would  justify."  Missouri's 
interpretation  would  result  in  the  nonsensical  declaration,  that 
possibly  all  the  elect  would  not  believe,  and  that  God  simply 
determined  to  justify  those  of  the  elect  who  did  believe,  and 
not  the  rest  of  the  elect!  The  words,  "all  those  who,"  show 
that  God  has  determined  from  among  a  larger  number  to  justify 
only  a  certain  portion.  If,  as  Missouri  maintains  firmly,  these 
decrees  speak  only  of  the  elect,  there  would  have  to  be  this 
difference  among  the  elect,  that  some  believe  and  are  justified,, 
while  others  do  not  believe  and  are  not  justified.  But  no!  From, 
among  those  who  are  called  God  justifies  those  who  believe  in. 


Thesis  III.  681 

Christ,  and  He  justifies  them  all,  even  those  who  afterwards 
fall  away,  temporary  believers,  whom  Missouri  also  would  have 
excluded  from  this  decree.  Nevertheless  the  words  are  clear 
and  stand  like  a  wall;  and  they  agree  also  with  the  Scriptures, 
thank  God!     He  that  believes  in  Christ  is  justified. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  clear  words  of  our  Confes- 
sion declare  that  all  believers  are  received  in  the  same  way 
unto  adoption  and  the  inheritance  of  eternal  life;  and  yet  this 
does  not  say  that  temporary  believers  are  elected,  in  the  strictest 
sense  of  the  word,  unto  salvation.  Those  only  are  elected  who 
persevere  to  the  end,  and  for  this  reason  the  eighth  decree  uses 
different  terms:  "Eternally  save  and  glorify  in  eternal  life."  As 
long,  however,  as  a  person  believes  in  Christ  that  long  he  is  a 
child  and  heir  of  God,  and  therefore  need  not  anxiously  inquire 
whether  the  grace  of  election  hover  over  him.  There  is  no 
greater  grace  than  this  that  we  be  children  of  God  and  heirs 
of  salvation;  all  believers  have  this  grace,  yet  they  can  lose 
it  through  fault  of  their  own;  and  this  does  not  prevent  elec- 
tion; for  even  the  elect  fall  temporarily  and  lose  the  grace 
they  had,  as  the  instance  of  David  and  of  the  Galatians  proves: 
"Thou  art  the  man"  (of  death)  —  "Ye  are  fallen  from  grace." 
Finally,  the  fourth  decree  is  very  important,  especially  in  the 
present  controversy,  because  it  shows  that  according  to  God's 
eternal  purpose  the  reception  of  a  person  "unto  the  adoption 
and  inheritance  of  eternal  life"  depends  on  his  own  reception 
of  Christ  in  true  repentance  and  true  faith.  If  only  our  oppo- 
nents would  examine  this  decree  more  closely,  they  might  per- 
haps return  to  the  truth;  it  annihilates  their  doctrine  of  election 
on  all  sides. 

According  to  the  fifth  decree  God  also  determined  to  sanctify 
in  love  all  who  believe  and  are  justified,  i.  e.  to  renew  them,  that 
they  may  be  able  to  war  against  evil  lusts  and  escape  return 
to  the  slavery  of  Satan.  According  to  the  sixth  decree,  to  pro- 
tect them  against  their  enemies,  to  govern  them  graciously,  to 
strengthen  them  in  weakness,  to  comfort  them  in  all  affliction, 
so  that  they  may  not  in  despondency  and  impatience  deny  Christ. 
The  last  two  blessings,  however,  do  not  as  yet  constitute  pre- 
servation in  faith  itself;  the  seventh  decree  speaks  of  that.  God 
would  preserve  in  them,  i.  e.  in  all  believers  —  Missouri  declares 
again,  in  the  elect  —  the  good  work,  that  is  faith,  love,  patience, 
if  they  observe  God's  Word,  etc.     But  they  cannot  do  this  of 


682  A  Testbno7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

their  own  strength,  Missouri  tells  us.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that 
they  should;  for  we  are  speaking  of  people  who  already  have 
the  Spirit  and  grace  of  God,  know  and  love  God's  Word,  although 
they  also  have  the  flesh  which  constantly  seeks  to  draw  them 
away  from  the  Word.  Everything  then  depends  on  their  abid- 
ing by  the  Word,  on  their  watching  and  praying  diligently,  and 
thus  using  faithfully  the  gifts  they  have  received.  By  this  they 
will  not  preserve  themselves,  but  only  remain  in  the  order  in 
which  God  alone  will  keep  them.  Believers  can  do  this,  and 
when  they  do  it,  there  is  no  doubt  but  what  God  will  faithfully 
keep  His  promises  and  preserve  them  in  faith.  This  decree  has 
the  same  difficulty  for  our  opponents  as  the  fourth.  Claiming 
that  here  again  only  the  elect,  and  not  all  believers,  are  spoken 
of,  they  cannot  make  the  words  fit  properly:  "If  they  observe 
God's  Word,"  etc.;  for  these  words  show  that  possibly  God  will 
not  preserve  some.  If  the  decree  speaks  only  of  the  elect,  we 
would  have  the  question,  whether  all  the  elect  will  be  preserved, 
just  as  the  Missourian  notion  produced  the  cjuestion,  whether 
all  the  elect  will  be  really  brought  to  faith.  It  is  absolutely 
impossible  to  harmonize  the  Missourian  conception  with  the 
clear  words  of  the  Confession;  our  opponents  have  done  much 
patching  on  these  decrees,  but  all  in  vain.  What  is  written  is 
written! 

The  eighth  decree  for  the  first  time  mentions  the  selection 
of  persons  itself:  "That  those  whom  He  has  elected,  called, 
and  justified.  He  would  eternally  save  and  glorify  in  life  eternal." 
But  even  here  "whom  He  has  elected"  does  not  stand  alone; 
for  then  some  one  might  think:  O,  if  I  only  knew  whether  I 
am  elected;  for  if  I  am  not  elected,  all  the  other  decrees  will 
"be  "of  no  avail"  for  me;  everything  depends  on  this  last,  etc. 
All  such  thoughts  our  Confession  cuts  off  by  adding  the  two 
words  "called  and  justified,"  thus  briefly  summarizing  and 
repeating  the  foregoing  decrees.  In  this  manner  our  Confes- 
sion interweaves  eternal  election  and  the  revealed  counsel  of 
grace  in  every  possible  way.  The  foregoing  decrees  have 
instructed  us  in  regard  to  the  "called  and  justified";  we  have 
learned  that  from  eternity  God  ordained  everything  for  this 
purpose,  so  firmly  and  securely  that  even  the  gates  of  hell  can- 
not subvert  a  single  one  of  these  decrees,  and  that  God  has  not 
excluded  a  single  person  from  all  His  gracious  ordination.  We 
can  therefore  be  perfectly  at  rest,  and  joyfully  praise  and  mag- 


Thesis  III.  683 

nify  God.  Now  the  Confession  places  beside  "called  and  jus- 
tified" the  altogether  synonymous  word,  "whom  He  has  elected." 
Just  as  God  has  excluded  no  man  in  calling  and  justifying  who 
does  not  exclude  himself,  he  has  likewise  omitted  no  man  for 
any  but  the  very  same  reason  in  eternal  election.  And  thus 
again  we  can  be  perfectly  at  rest.  This  is  how  election  is  revealed 
in  the  gospel,  "explained"  and  "proclaimed."  And  therefore, 
when  we  hear  the  precious  gospel  concerning  God's  grace  towards 
all  sinners,  we  need  seek  no  further  whether  we  are  really  elected. 
There  is  no  mystery  hovering  above  our  heads  to  cast  a  shadow 
upon  the  gospel.  Christ  has  revealed  to  us  the  Father's  will 
and  thereby  also  our  eternal  election,  when  He  declares:  Repent 
ye  and  believe  —  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His 
only-begotten  Son,  etc.  "Therefore"- —  our  Confession  continues 
in  the  passage  referred  to  — "no  one  who  would  be  saved  should 
trouble  or  harass  himself  with  thoughts  concerning  the  secret 
counsel  of  God,  as  to  whether  he  is  elected  and  ordained  to 
eternal  life;  for  with  these  miserable  Satan  is  accustomed  to 
attack  and  annoy  godly  hearts.  But  they  should  hear  Christ, 
who  is  the  Book  of  Life  and  God's  eternal  election  of  all  God's 
children  to  eternal  life;  who  testifies  to  all  men  without  distinc- 
tion that  it  is  God's  will  that  all  men  who  labor  and  are  heavy 
laden  with  sin  should  come  to  Him,  in  order  that  He  may  give 
them  rest  and  save  them."  §  70.  This  language  Missouri  unfor- 
tunately does  not  understand  and  cannot  understand  it  for  the 
simple  reason  that  it  does  not  find  election  revealed  in  the  gospel, 
but  imagines  that  God  selected  the  persons  according  to  a  secret 
hidden  will  and  counsel.  The  very  thing  declared  again  and 
again  by  our  Confession  to  be  indispensable  for  the  correct 
understanding  of  the  doctrine  of  election,  namely  that  election 
must  be  "sought"  and  "considered"  and  the  true  "judgment" 
concerning  it  formed  from  the  gospel  and  from  the  gospel  alone — • 
this  is  the  very  thing  our  opponents  reject;  they  hold  fast  to 
their  notion,  election  is  a  mystery.  And  thus  they  are  bound 
to  arrive  at  a  diiTerent  goal;  for  they  ascribe  to  their  "mystery" 
all  that  the  Confession  ascribes  to  the  gospel.  This  mystery 
of  theirs  is  made  the  cause  which  procures,  works,  and  pro- 
motes our  salvation  and  all  that  belongs  thereto;  this  mystery 
is  declared  to  be  the  source  whence  everything  flows;  this  mystery 
is  considered  the  very  sweetest  consolation.  And  thus  this  mys- 
tery, which  only  embraces  a  few  persons,  is  in  reality  exalted 


684  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

to  constitute  a  new  counsel  of  salvation  beyond  Christ,  beyond 
the  grace  of  God,  beyond  the  gospel,  etc.  Oh,  it  is  a  terrible 
judgment  upon  this  proud  Synod  thus  to  err  grossly  without 
finding  any  decided  testimony  against  its  error  from  among  the 
nearly  one  thousand  pastors,  professors,  presidents,  etc.,  within 
its  bounds,  from  among  all  these  famous  guardians  of  the  "reine 
Lehre."  What  puerile  means  may  not  these  St.  Louis  savants 
use  in  defending  their  case,  without  arousing  the  least  suspicion 
among  their  faithful  devotees !  They  dare  publicly  to  assert  that 
these  8  decrees  include  only  the  elect,  although  the  very  first 
one,  as  all  the  world  can  see,  embraces  all  men,  and  the  wording 
of  all  the  rest  is  such  as  to  render  it  absolutely  impossible  to 
refer  them  to  the  elect  alone.  They  dare  assert  that  wherever 
the  Confession  speaks  of  revealing  election  it  means  personal 
certainty.  They  dare  begin  by  fabricating  a  mystery,  of  which 
the  Scriptures  know  nothing,  and  dare  then  to  use  this  "mystery" 
in  order  to  shield  this  very  mystery  against  every  attack;  for  as 
soon  as  their  doctrine  of  election  is  refuted  by  the  clear  word 
of  the  gospel,  they  reply:  It  is  a  mystery.  By  means  of  this 
mystery  they  manage  to  get  rid  of  the  entire  revealed  Word; 
no  passage  of  Scripture  will  avail  to  convince  them,  for  all  the 
passages  printed  in  the  Bible  belong  to  the  revealed  counsel  of 
God;  and  the  St.  Louis  invention  consists  in  the  claim,  that  all 
the  passages  of  the  revealed  counsel  are  not  to  fit  at  all  into 
the  mystery.  And  so  they  can  teach  concerning  this  mystery 
whatever  they  please;  they  can  upset  the  entire  gospel  and  say 
simply:  It  is  a  mystery.  And  the  entire  Synod  is  ready  to 
subm.it! 


THESIS  IV. 

The  gospel  directs  us  to   Christ  —  God  has  elected  in   Christ. 

{  This  part  of  the  German  original  passed  through  the  hands  of  P.  Ernst 
before  being  printed  in  German.) 

In  the  Gospel,  as  we  have  seen,  election  is  revealed.  But 
according  to  the  Gospel  all  salvation  is  founded  only  upon  Christ 
and  His  most  holy  merit.  And  therefore  election  also  must  have 
taken  place  in  Christ,  i.  e.  for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ. 

"Cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  which 
are  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them";  this  is  the  judg- 
ment of  a  holy  and  righteous  God  upon  all  the  transgressors  of 
the  law.  The  judgment  of  everlasting  death  is  thus  pronounced 
upon  the  whole  human  race.  "For  there  is  no  difference,  for  all 
have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God."  Rom.  3,  23, 
And  God  cannot  proceed  without  anything  further  to  cancel  or 
take  back  this  judgment.  God's  holiness,  which  must  ever  hate 
all  wickedness,  stands  in  the  way;  His  righteousness  likewise, 
which  must  ever  reward  every  man  according  to  his  works;  and 
also  His  truth,  which  must  execute  the  punishment  after  it  is 
imposed.  Therefore,  before  the  love  of  God  could  cancel  the 
jtidgment  of  the  law  regarding  the  sinner  and  bestow  upon  him 
freedom  from  guilt  and  punishment,  righteousness  and  salvation, 
the  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin  had  to  be  removed  in  a  way  that 
would  perfectly  satisfy  the  divine  righteousness,  and  a  perfect  ful- 
fillment of  the  requirements  of  the  law  had  to  be  rendered. 

But  who  was  to  render  this  sufficient  satisfaction?  Man 
himself?  Where  was  man  in  his  unholiness  and  in  his  total 
depravity  to  find  strength  for  rendering  a  perfect  fulfillment  of 
the  law?  What  could  man  pay  to  atone  for  his  guilt  after  he  had 
fallen  into  eternal  death?  A  mediator,  a  substitute,  a  bondsman 
had  to  be  found  for  him  in  order  to  render  the  necessary  perfect 
atonement  for  him.  But  who  was  to  be  this  mediator?  No 
angel  was  able  to  undertake  the  task.  For  the  word  of  the  Scrip- 
tures applies  also  to  the  angels:     "None  of  them  can  by  any 

(685) 


686  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

means  redeem  his  brother,  nor  give  to  God  a  ransom  for  him;: 
for  the  redemption  of  their  soul  is  precious,  and  it  ceaseth  for- 
ever" (Ps.  49,  7-8).  God  Himself  had  to  undertake  the  task. 
And — eternal  thanks  be  to  Him! — He  did  undertake  it.  "God 
was  in  Christ,  reconciling-  the  world  unto  Himself."  God  Him- 
self became  man  in  Christ,  put  Himself  under  the  law  in  voluntary 
love,  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  yea  unto  the  death  of  the 
cross.  By  this  vicarious  work  and  buffering  of  the  incarnate 
Son  of  God  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  all  sinners  was  com- 
pletely canceled  and  a  flawless  fulfillment  of  the  law  obtained  for 
all;  thus  the  eternal  righteousness  of  God  was  satisfied,  the 
punitive  judgment  of  the  law  was  carried  out  and  thereby  re- 
moved, and  the  possibility  opened  for  the  sinner  of  escaping  the 
judgment  through  grace.  For  now  God  can  declare  sinners  free 
and  admit  them  to  salvation  without  interfering  with  His  right- 
eousness and  holiness. 

When  God  now  actually  declares  a  certain  sinner  free  of  guilt 
and  punishment  and  gives  him  salvation,  He  is  moved  to  this  act 
not  by  any  merit,  any  performance,  any  worthiness  of  man,  but 
without  any  merit  on  man's  part,  entirely  gratis — by  His  grace 
for  the  sake  of  the  reconciliation  which  Jesus  Christ  has  wrought. 
Because  God  imputed  to  His  dear  Son  the  sins  of  the  sinner,  as 
though  His  Son  had  Himself  committed  them.  He  now  imputes 
to  the  sinner  the  holy  sufifering  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  though  the  sin- 
ner had  himself  endured  it,  and  on  the  strength  of  this  imputa- 
tion He  pronounces  him  free  from  all  punishment.  Because 
God  put  His  dear  Son  under  the  law,  as  though  His  Son  was 
bound  in  duty  Himself  to  fulfill  it.  He  now  imputes  to  the  sinner 
Christ's  fulfillment  of  the  law,  as  though  the  sinner  had  him- 
self rendered  it,  and  on  the  strength  of  this  imputation  declares 
him  to  be  just  and  an  heir  of  eternal  life.  Not  in  us,  therefore, 
but  outside  of  ourselves,  in  Christ  alone,  namely  in  His  most  holy 
merit  lies  the  cause  of  the  justification  and  salvation  of  the  sinner. 

And  there  also  lies  the  reason  and  cause  of  election,  for  elec- 
tion is  nothing  but  the  eternal  decree  of  God  to  justify  sinners 
in  time  and  to  save  them  eternally.  Therefore,  just  as  God,  be- 
cause of  His  eternal  righteousness  and  hoHness,  can  in  time 
actually  declare  sinners  free  from  the  curse  of  the  law  and  saved 
onlv  for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ;  so  also  our  holy 
and  righteous  God  could  determine  in  eternity  to  declare  sinners 


Thesis  IV,  687 

free  from  the  curse  of  the  law  and  to  save  them  forever — or  to 
elect — only  for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ.  To  be  sure, 
reconciliation  was  not  then  effected;  but  just  as  the  fall  was 
already  present  before  the  omniscient  eye  of  God,  redemption 
also  was  present,  when  He  appointed  certain  persons  unto  the 
infallible  attainment  of  salvation.  It  Is  for  this  reason  Christ  is 
called  the  Lamb  of  God  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world 
(Rev.  13,  8),  i.  e.  slain  according  to  God's  eternal  ordination  and 
promise.  Furthermore,  just  as  God  justifies  and  saves  in  time 
only  for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  and  not  for  the  sake 
of  anything  in  man,  so  also  He  elected  unto  salvation  in  eternity 
only  for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  and  not  for  the  sake 
of  any  good  quality  in  man.  And  therefore  the  apostle  declares, 
Eph.  1,  3-4:  "Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  hath  blessed  us  with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly 
places  in  Christ.  According  as  He  hath  chosen  us  in  Him."  By 
the  word  "according"  the  apostle  binds  together  the  eternal  elec- 
tion and  the  temporal  blessings.  Now  we  are  blessed  of  God  in 
time  only  for  the  sake  of  Christ;  therefore  we  are  also  elected  of 
God  in  eternity  only  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  In  Christ,  therefore, 
the  Savior  ordained  from  eternity,  lies  the  sole  and  exclusive 
meritorious  cause  of  eternal  election. — So  teach  the  Scriptures, 
so  our  Church  believes,  teaches,  and  confesses,  and  so  we 
believe,  teach  and  confess  with  our  Church. 

We  place  no  merit  whatever  in  man  by  our  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination, as  Missouri  dishonestly  declares.  Missouri  could 
know  better  from  our  writings;  for  we  have  repeated  and  most 
emphatically  testified  that  we  do  not  ascribe  the  least  merit  or 
worthiness  to  man  for  the  sake  of  which  he  could  be  said  to  have 
been  elected.  As  in  justification  so  also  in  election  we  base 
everything  entirely  upon  God's  mercy  and  Christ's  merit.  We 
declare  that  there  are  only  two  moving  causes  of  election,  not 
three,  as  Missouri  is  pleased  to  impute  to  us.  We  confess  with 
our  F.  C:  "Through  this  doctrine  and  explanation  of  the  eter- 
nal and  saving  choice  of  the  elect  children  of  God  His  own  glory 
is  entirely  and  fully  given  to  God,  that  in  Christ  He  saves  us  out 
of  pure  mercy,  without  any  merits  or  good  works  of  ours,  accord- 
ing to  the  purpose  of  His  will,  as  it  is  written,  Eph.  1:  Having 
predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ  to 
Himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  His  will,  to  the  praise 


A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine^  Etc. 

of  the  glory  of  His  grace,  wherein  He  hath  made  us  accepted  in 
the  Beloved.  Therefore  it  is  false  and  wrong  when  it  is  taught 
that  not  only  the  mercy  of  God  and  the  most  holy  merit  of  Christ, 
but  also  that  there  is  in  us  a  cause  of  God's  election,  on  account 
of  which  God  has  chosen  us  to  eternal  life."  §§  87-88.  As  the 
Confession  in  this  passage,  so  we  also,  and  that  as  emphatically 
as  our  opponents  are  able  to  do,  reject  the  doctrine,  that  beyond 
the  mercy  of  God  and  the  merit  of  Christ  Jesus  there  is  in  us 
also  a  cause  for  the  sake  of  which  God  elected  us  unto  eternal 
life.  We  indeed  declare — and  our  authority  will  be  set  forth  in 
the  following  thesis — that  Christ's  merit  is  here  considered  not 
merely  as  it  has  been  obtained  for  us,  but  also  as  it  is  appropriated 
by  us;  that  accordingly  faith  does  not  flow  from  election,  but 
precedes  election  in  the  thought  of  God.  But  we  by  no  means 
constitute  faith  a  third  impelling  cause  of  election.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  heartily  confess  with  the  third  article:  "I  believe  that 
I  cannot  by  my  own  reason  or  strength  believe  in  Christ  or  come 
to  Him."  We  ascribe  no  free  will  to  man,  by  means  of  which  he 
might  be  able  to  accommodate  and  prepare  himself  for  grace. 
We  do  not  hold  that  when  the  Word  comes  to  man  it  awakes 
powers  slumbering  in  him,  by  means  of  which  he  then  would  be 
able  to  decide  in  favor  of  grace  and  give  the  word  of  assent.  We 
do  not  picture  the  process  to  our  minds  as  though  God  comes  half 
way  and  we  the  other  half,  or  at  least  a  few  steps.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  know  from  the  Scriptures,  the  Confession,  and  our  own 
experience,  as  well  as  does  Missouri,  that  God  must  come  the 
entire  way  to  us,  and  that,  if  God  should  decline  to  do  so,  we 
would  never  be  united  with  Him.  We  believe  and  confess  that 
God  must  convert  man;  man  cannot  of  his  own  powers  aid  in  the 
least,  he  can  only  submit  passively,  he  can  only  permit  God  to 
bring  him  to  faith;  in  fact,  even  this  that  man  submits  passivel}/ 
to  the  operation  of  God's  grace,  God  Himself  must  work  by  His 
Spirit  through  the  Word  that  calls.  The  Holy  Spirit  must  over- 
come the  natural  resistance  of  man  and  liberate  his  will,  which 
by  nature  is  enslaved  under  sin.  Yet  this  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  not  irresistible,  so  that,  whenever  He  begins  to  operate 
in  a  heart.  His  operation  necessarily  must  attain  the  end,  that 
man  becomes  a  believer  and  remains  a  believer;  on  the  contrary, 
on  man's  part  there  always  remains  the  possibility  of  his  wilfull)/ 
resisting  the   operation   of  the   Holy   Spirit.     He   who   opposes 


Thesis  IV.  689 

God's  grace  with  such  wilful  resistance  either  never  comes  to 
faith,  or  loses  faith,  and  that  by  his  own  fault.  But  whenever  a 
man  comes  to  faith,  it  is  never,  not  even  for  the  very  least  part, 
his  own  work  or  merit,  but  altogether  and  exclusively  the  opera- 
tion, the  creative  operation  of  the  grace  of  God  in  the  Word. 

Nor  is  faith,  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  work  of  God  in  the  heart  of 
man,  in  so  far  as  it  is  actually,  taken  by  itself,  something  good, 
considered  in  election,  as  little  as  in  justification.  There  as  well 
as  here,  and  here  as  well  as  there,  faith  finds  a  place  solely  and 
alone  as  the  divinely  appointed  means  of  apprehension,  as  the 
God-given  hand  for  receiving  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ.  Just  as 
in  justification  it  is  not  faith  as  such,  faith  as  a  divinely  produced 
condition  of  the  heart,  which  moves  God  to  declare  unto  us  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  but  altogether  and  only  the  merit  of  Jesus 
Christ,  which  forms  the  contents  of  faith;  so  also  in  election  it  is 
not  faith  as  such,  faith  as  a  divinely  wrought  condition  and 
quality  of  the  heart,  but  altogether  and  only  the  merit  of  Jesus 
Christ,  which  moved  God  to  appoint  men  unto  salvation. — Where 
then  remains  any  human  merit  upon  which  we  could  be  said  to 
make  election  depend?  Not  the  least  particle  is  left.  We  take 
faith  exclusively  as  the  work  of  divine  grace,  not  as  a  human 
achievement,  as  the  divinely  appointed  means  for  receiving  the 
merit  of  Christ,  not  as  a  cause  which  in  itself  impels  God.  Christ's 
most  holy  merit  is  for  us  the  only  foundation  and  cause  of  election. 

Nevertheless,  Dr.  Walther  finds  it  possible  to  accuse  us  in 
lengthy  articles  of  holding  a  "synergistic  and  Pelagian"  doctrine 
of  election.  He  has  the  elifrontery  to  assert  that  we  teach  "a 
co-operation  of  man  toward  justification  and  salvation."  This 
thought,  he  writes,  permeates  our  entire  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion. On  this  thought  all  our  teaching  and  contention  is  based. 
This  thought  always  forms  our  starting  point,  and  this  thought 
is  ever  our  final  goal.  Synergism  is  the  element  we  move  in. 
We  are  synergists  by  birth  and  blood,  and  this  synergism  of  ours 
has  only  broken  out  like  a  secret  ulcer  in  the  doctrine  of  predes- 
tination ("L.  u.  W.",  27,  p.  414).  We  attack  the  truth  of  the 
Gospel,  "justification  by  faith  alone,"  make  faith  the  work  of 
man  for  the  sake  of  which  he  is  justified,  etc.  (pp.  415  and  416). 
Indeed,  not  merely  synergists  does  he  declare  us  to  be,  but  "Pela- 
gians of  the  grossest  kind"  ("Illumination,"  p.  59)  "who  continue 
to  dally  with  reason  like  Jews  and  Turks"  (p.  29). 


690  A   Testimony  Agamst  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

What  is  Dr.  W.'s  authority  for  raising  such  strong  accusa- 
tions against  us?  He  introduces  as  proofs  for  his  assertions  a 
selection  of  synergistic  and  Pelagian  propositions,  which  he  pre- 
tends to  have  found  in  our  writings,  and  which  he  imagines  prove 
without  question  that  we  move  in  synergism  as  the  fish  does  in 
water.  The  first  flower  of  this  kind  which  he  introduces,  very 
fragrant  according  to  his  notion,  and  clearly  betraying  the  syner- 
gistic tree  whence  it  was  plucked,  is  one  of  the  theses  furnished 
at  the  request  of  St.  Louis  by  Prof.  Schmidt;  it  reads:  "It  is  of 
the  highest  importance  for  the  scriptural  elucidation  of  the  doc- 
trine of  predestination  to  note  carefully  the  distinction  between 
the  universal  and  the  particular  will  of  God's  grace,  since  the 
latter,  as  the  immediate  reason  and  norm  of  election  in  the  strictest 
sense  of  the  word,  does  indeed  presuppose  the  varying  conduct 
of  man  toward  universal  grace." — Another  blossom,  which  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  W.'s  notion  can  grow  only  on  synergistic  ground, 
he  finds  in  Prof  Stellhorn's  tract,  p.  20:  "By  this  we  see  how 
according  to  the  F.  C.  a  selection  among  men  came  to  be  made; 
God  indeed  would  lead  all  men  without  exception  into  heaven 
on  the  universal  way  of  salvation,  but  He  would  do  this  only 
when  they  permit  Him.  by  His  grace  and  power  to  lead  them 
on  this  way  and  do  not  prevent  this  by  wilful  resistance.  But 
since  the  majority  of  men  unfortunately  do  prevent  Him  from 
thus  leading  them,  God  could  not  appoint  all  infallibly  unto  sal- 
vation, but  was  compelled  to  make  a  selection.  He  thus  elected 
all  those,  yet  only  those,  who  hear  and  consider  His  Word  (point 
3  of  the  F.  C.),  by  true  repentance  through  true  faith  receive 
Christ  (point  4),  hold  to  God's  Word,  pray  diligently,  remain  in 
the  goodness  of  God,  and  faithfully  use  the  gifts  received  (point 
7).  All  these,  yet  only  these,  are  the  elect,  whom  He  also  re- 
solved to  save  infallibly  in  eternal  life  and  to  glorify  (point  8)." 

These  and  similar  utterances  are  to  prove  irrefutably  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  W.  that  we  injure  the  "by  grace  alone",  that  we  are 
synergists,  and  even  Arch-Pelagians.  Now  it  is  indeed  true,  we 
have  indeed  taught  and  do  still  teach  that  in  the  counsel  of  elec- 
tion the  consideration  of  the  varying  conduct  of  men  towards 
the  profifered  divine  grace  dare  not  be  wholly  excluded.  We 
teach:  God  indeed  desires  to  lead  all  men  to  heaven  on  the 
universal  way  of  salvation,  yet  only  when  they  permit  Him  to 
lead  them  by  His  grace  and  power,  and  when  they  do  not  pre- 


Thesis  IV.  691 

vent  this  leading  by  wilful  resistance.  We  teach  that  a  distinc- 
tion must  be  made  between  the  natural  resistance,  which  does 
not  prevent  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  wilful  resistance, 
which  forecloses  the  way  for  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that  He  cannot 
efifect  His  work  in  man.  We  indeed  so  teach,  it  is  true.  But 
it  is  not  true  that  these  statements  are  irrefragable  proofs  for  the 
accusation,  that  we  assail  the  'alone  by  faith",  or  that  we  cherish 
synergism.  If  these  statements  were  really  what  Dr.  W.  de- 
clares them  to  be — irrefragable  proofs  of  synergism — they  would 
at  all  times  and  everywhere  necessarily  contain  a  synergistic 
meaning,  and  could  not  be  employed  in  any  other  sense,  at  least 
on  the  part  of  those  who  know  what  they  are  saying.  All,  who 
had  ever  employed  such  language,  or  employ  it  now,  would  then 
necessarily  be  synergists  and  Pelagians.  Even  the  adage,  so 
often  repeated  by  Missouri  in  the  present  controversy:  "If  two 
say  the  same  thing,  it  is  not  the  same",  would  not  alter  this  fact, 
■For  the  claim  is  that  these  statements  are  undeniable  proofs; 
therefore  even  this  old  adage  will  not  dare  enter  a  denial. — But 
how,  if  we  could  show  that  such  statements  are  made  not  only 
by  the  dogmaticians,  but  even  by  Luther,  in  the  Confession,  and 
in  the  Scriptures  themselves?  Certainly,  there  would  be  only  a 
twofold  possibility:  either  the  statements  referred  to  are  in  reality 
undeniable  proofs;  and  then  not  only  we,  but  Luther,  the  Con- 
fession, and  the  Scriptures  stand  condemned:  or  Luther,  the 
Confession,  and  the  Scriptures  are  free  of  synergistic  leaven  in 
spite  of  these  statements;  and  then  the  undeniable  proofs  of  our 
synergism  vanish,  and  the  accusations  raised  against  us  are  wholly 
false  and  without  founda.tion^ — a  grave  sin  against  God. 

There  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  Luther,  the  Confession  ,and 
the  Scriptures  themselves  employ  these  "synergistic  and  Pela- 
gian" statements  and  expressions,  for  which  Dr.  W.  accuses  us, 
and  let  it  be  well  noted,  employ  them  in  precisely  the  same  sense 
as  we  do.  As  we  do,  so  Luther  also  speaks  of  a  varying  conduct 
toward  the  gospel.  The  passage  we  refer  to  is  found  in  his  House- 
Postille  in  the  sermon  on  the  gospel  for  the  Sunday  Septugesima. 
There  Luther  preaches  as  follows :  — 

"Some  seek  other  thoughts  and  interpret  the  words  thus: 
Many  are  called,  that  is,  God  ofifers  His  grace  to  many;  but  few 
are  chosen,  that  is.  He  bestows  such  grace  upon  few;  for  only 
few  are  saved.     This  Is  indeed  a  wicked  interpretation;   for  how 


6^92  A  Testimo7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

can  it  be  otherwise,  if  one  really  thinks  and  believes  this  of  God, 
than  that  he  should  hate  God  for  this  reason,  the  fault  lying  in 
His  will  that  we  are  not  all  saved?" 

"Therefore  the  sense  of  this  passage  is  altogether  different: 
Many  are  called  etc.,  for  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  proceeds  in. 
common  and  in  public  to  whomever  will  hear  and  receive;  and 
God  has  ordered  this  preaching  so  exceedingly  in  common  and  irt 
public  that  every  one  may  hear  it,  believe  and  accept,  and  be  saved. 
But  how  does  it  turn  out?  As  the  gospel  shows :  Few  are  chosen, 
that  is,  few  conduct  themselves  toward  the  gospel  so  that  God  has 
pleasure  in  them.  For  some  hear  it  and  do  not  esteem  it;  some 
hear  it  and  do  not  hold  fast  to  it,  nor  are  willing  to  sacrifice  any- 
thing for  it,  or  to  sufifer;  some  hear  it,  yet  pay  more  attention  ta 
money  and  property  and  worldly  pleasure.  But  this  does  not 
please  God,  and  He  does  not  Hke  such  people." 

"This  is  what  Christ  calls:  not  chosen,  that  is,  not  to  conduct 
themselves  so  that  God  has  pleasure  in  them.  But  those  are 
chosen  people  and  well-pleasing  to  God,  who  hear  the  gospel  dili- 
gently, believe  in  TThrist,  prove  their  faith  by  good  fruits,  and  suf- 
fer on  account  of  it  what  they  are  given  to  sufifer"  (Erlangen  ed.,. 
I.,  p.  206). 

Here  Luther  evidently  declares:  Whether  God  has  such 
pleasure  in  one  who  is  called  as  to  receive  him  into  the  number  of 
His  elect  children,  depends  indeed  on  his  so  conducting  himself 
that  God  can  have  pleasure  in  him.  But  now  God  can  have  no 
pleasure  in  the  sinner  apart  from  Christ,  but  only  in  Christ,  the 
Son  in  whom  He  is  well-pleased.  But  a  person  can  be  in  Christ 
only  through  faith.  For  "without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please 
God."  To  be  sure,  faith  is  not  man's  own  work,  but  the  gift  of 
God.  But  God  will  give  faith  only  to  those,  and  does  in  reality 
give  it  only  to  those,  who  do  not  make  this  giving  impossible  by 
wilful  resistance.  In  those  who  do  this,  who  so  conduct  them- 
selves toward  the  gospel,  God  cannot  have  His  work,  in  them 
therefore  He  cannot  have  pleasure.  —  Luther  thus  uses  the  same 
expression  as  we  do,  uses  it  in  the  same  sense  as  we  do.  Luther, 
therefore,  must  also  be  called  a  gross  Pelagian,  an  imitator  of 
Jews  and  Turks!  —  Well,  with  him  as  our  companion  we  can 
afford  to  bear  these  heretical  appellatives! 

As  Luther,  so  also  the  Confession  speaks  of  the  different  con- 
duct of  men  towards  the  means  of  grace.  Thus,  for  instance,  we 
read  in  the  second  article  of  the  F.  C. :   "For  this  reason  we  will 


Thesis  IV.  693 

now  relate  still  further  from  God's  Word  how  man  is  converted  to 
God,  how  and  through  what  means  (namely,  through  the  oral 
Word  and  the  holy  Sacraments)  the  Holy  Ghost  is  efficacious  in 
us,  and  is  willing  to  work  and  bestow,  in  our  hearts,  true  repent- 
ance, faith,  and  new  spiritual  powers  and  ability  for  good,  and 
how  we  should  act  ourselves  towards  these  means,  and  use  them." 
(Jacobs'  Translation,  p.  561,  §  48).  The  Confession  sets  out  to 
show  how  man  is  converted  to  God ;  and  here  it  states  explicitly 
that  regard  must  indeed  be  had  to  the  manner  in  which  man  acts 
■or  conducts  himself  towards  the  appointed  means  of  salvation. 
<jod,  we  are  told  further,  indeed  desires  most  earnestly  the  salva- 
tion of  all  men;  hence  He  offers  them  all  His  grace  in  the  Word 
■efficaciously,  and  by  means  of  the  W^ord  He  would  call  men  unto 
salvation,  draw  them  to  Himself,  convert  them,  regenerate,  and 
sanctify  them.  (§  50).  Now  although  man  in  his  spiritual  death 
cannot  of  his  own  strength  receive,  understand,  or  believe  the 
W^ord,  yet,  even  though  unconverted  to  •  God,  he  can  hear  and 
read  it  outwardly.  For  in  these  outward  things  man  has  retained 
his  free  will  to  some  extent  after  the  fall,  so  that  he  can  go  to 
■church,  hear  the  preaching,  or  refuse  to  do  so.  (§  53).  And 
by  means  of  this  Word  God  works  and  breaks  our  hearts  and 
draws  man  to  believe  the  Word  and  give  assent  to  it.  For  we  are 
to  be  certain  that,  when  God's  Word  is  preached  in  truth  and 
purity,  and  when  men  hear  it  with  seriousness  and  diligence  and 
consider  it,  God  will  surely  be  present  and  will  give  through  the 
Word  what  man  by  his  own  powers  can  neither  take  nor  give. 
(§§  54^  55)  When  now  a  man  refuses  to  hear  preaching  or  to 
read  the  Word,  and  despises  the  Word,  he  has  no  injustice  done 
him  when  the  Holy  Ghost  does  not  enlighten  him,  but  leaves  him 
to  perish  in  the  darkness  of  his  unbelief.  (§  58)  And  such  a 
person  cannot  console  himself  with  God's  eternal  election,  nor 
■obtain  His  mercy.  For  God  does  not  force  man  to  become  godly. 
And  those  who  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost  and  persistently 
oppose  the  known  truth,  as  Stephen  says  of  the  hardened  Jews 
(Acts  7),  will  not  be  converted  (§  60)  and  cannot  be  converted. 
■(§  83)  Our  Confession,  therefore,  speaks  explicitly  of  the  vary- 
ing conduct  of  man  towards  the  means  of  grace,  and  in  such  a 
way  as  to  show  that  it  would  have  this  "conduct"  taken  into  con- 
sideration when  the  question  is  asked,  who  will  and  who  will  not 
he  converted.  —  Do  you  think  the  Confession  has  likewise  a 
"^'synergistic  and  Pelagian  doctrine  of  predestination"?     There  is 


694  A  Testivw7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

no  question,  when  Mo.  brands  us  as  synergistic  heretics  on 
account  of  the  term  "conduct",  it  condemns  the  Confession  itself. 
For  we  use  the  term  in  tlie  very  same  sense. 

As  far  as  the  expression  "permit  one's  self  to  be  converted" 
is  concerned  which  is  also  adduced  to  prove  that  we  move  in 
synergism  as  in  our  proper  element,  the  Scriptures  themselves 
contain  it.  When  on  the  first  day  of  Pentecost  the  preaching  of 
Peter  pierced  the  hearts  of  many,  so  that  they  inquired  of  the 
apostles:  "Men  and  brethern,  what  shall  we  do?"  Peter  answered 
them,  Acts  2,  40:  "Save  yourselves  (according  to  the  German 
text,  Permit  yourselves  to  be  saved)  from  this  untoward  genera- 
tion." And  the  apostle  Paul  writes,  2  Cor.  5,  19.  20:  "God  was 
in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto  Himself,  not  imputing  their 
trespasses  unto  them;  and  hath  committed  unto  us  the  word  of 
reconciliation.  Now  then  we  are  ambassadors  for  Christ,  as 
though  God  did  beseech  you  by  us ;  we  pray  you  in  Christ's  stead, 
be  ye  (i.  e.  permit  yourselves  to  be,  let  yourselves  be)  reconciled 
to  God."  The  apostles,  therefore,  have  no  scruples  about  saying: 
"permit  yourself  to  be  helped",  "permit  yourself  to  be  reconciled."' 
And  it  certainly  is  plain  that  we  cannot  here  apply  the  principle, 
"Ought  to  do  does  not  argue  ability  to  do."  For  the  apostle  does 
not  preacli  law,  but  gospel.  His  words  contain  no  demand  of 
the  law,  but  a  gospel  petition,  a  gospel  invitation.  And  what  the 
gospel  demands  it  gives.  It  does  not  demand  what  it  does  not  in 
the  very  demand  give.  Man  indeed  by  nature  resists  the  "word 
of  reconciliation",  and  hence  cannot  of  his  own  powers  and  abili- 
ties permit  himself  to  be  reconciled.  But  the  Word  itself  over- 
comes his  resistance.  At  the  moment  in  which  the  tidings  of 
reconciliation  strike  his  ear  he  can  permit  himself  to  be  recon- 
ciled, he  can  become  a  personal  partaker  of  the  reconciliation 
obtained  for  him  and  offered  to  him,  if  only  he  cast  not  this  prof- 
fered reconcliation  away  by  wilful  resistance.  And  that  he  may 
not  do  this  and  thus  lose  his  salvation,  the  apostle  begs:  "Be  ye 
(let  or  permit  yourself  to  be)  reconciled  to  God."  —  Thus  when 
the  Scriptures  speak  of  permitting  oneself  to  be  reconciled,  of  per- 
mitting oneself  to  be  helped  and  saved,  they  mean  precisely  what 
we  mean  when  we  say  "permit  oneself  to  be  converted."  How 
now?  Are  the  Scriptures  become  "synergistic  and  Pelagian"? 
—  O  this  zeal  without  reason,  this  blind  fanaticism  of  Mo. ! 

But  especially  if  Dr.  W.  would  not  employ  devious  weight 
and  measure,  which,  as  is  well  known,  the  gentleman  abhors,  he 


Thesis  IV.  695 

would  have  to  accuse  all  the  fathers  of  our  Church  after  the  time 
of  the  F.  C,  no  less  than  he  does  us,  of  "synergistic  and  Pelagian 
predestination."  For  the  doctrine  we  teach  is  identical  with  that 
taught  by  all  the  fathers  of  our  Church  after  the  time  of  the  F.  C. 
Even  the  astounding  art  of  Dr.  W.  has  not  been  able  to  this  day 
to  show  the  contrary,  and  will  not  be  able  to  show  it  in  all  eternity. 
If  there  is  any  difference  at  all  between  the  old  theologians  and 
ourselves,  it  is  only  this  that  they  were  far  freer  in  the  expressions 
they  used,  far  less  anxious  about  any  possible  misinterpretation 
of  their  words  than  we  are.  If  then  we  are  really  synergists  and 
Pelagians,  our  old  fathers  are  such  even  more  than  we  are.  This 
will  at  once  appear  to  very  unprejudiced  person,  when  we  quote 
a  few  of  the  utterances  of  the  fathers. 

The  old  theologian  Baier  (died  1695  as  professor  in  Halle), 
whose  system  of  Christian  doctrine  is  used  as  the  basis  for  dog- 
matical instruction  in  St.  Louis,  is  the  first  whom  we  here  intro- 
duce. After  reminding  us,  in  the  section  on  conversion,  that  we 
must  distinguish  between  natural  and  wilful  resistance,  he  goes 
on  as  follows:  "This  natural  resistance  is  gradually  decreased  in 
conversion  itself  through  the  grace  which  dwells  in  the  Word 
(per  gratiam  verbo  Dei  conjunctum)  and  is  finally  overcome,  and 
therefore  taken  by  itself  does  not  prevent  conversion.  But  the 
other,  the  wilful  resistance,  which  is  superadded  to  the  natural,  as 
it  is  not  in  the  same  way  common  to  all  the  regenerate,  so  also  men 
can  by  the  powers  of  free  will  refrain  from  it."  (Baier,  Com- 
pendium, p.  439.) 

On  the  same  subject  we  have  an  expression  from  the  re- 
nowned theologian  John  Huelsemann  (in  1629  professor  at  Wit- 
tenberg; died  1661  as  professor  at  Leipzig)  in  his  work:  De 
Auxiliis  Gratia:  "Every  unregenerate  man  by  nature  despises  the 
preaching  of  the  cross,  because  it  does  not  agree  with  his  reason. 
For  'the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God; 
for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him,  neither  can  he  know  them', 
1  Cor.  2,  14;  Rom.  8,  7.  On  account  of  this  natural  resistance 
God  withdraws  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  from  no  nation  or 
individual,  for  it  is  the  intention  of  God  that  the  Gospel  shall 
remove  this  natural  resistance,  and  make  of  those  who  are  unwill- 
ing such  as  are  willing.  Hence  natural  resistance  is  the  very 
thing  with  which  the  grace  of  God  is  concerned,  that  it  may  be 
transformed  and  brought  under  the  obedience  of  faith,  2  Cor.  5, 
20;   10,  5;   Luke  1,  18;   Tit.  3,  3;   etc.     But  obstinate  contempt 


696  A    Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

or  wilful  resistance  is  what  is  described  as  contemptuously  refus- 
ing the  spiritual  powers  which  God  truly  and  actually  imparts 
through  every  ordinary  preaching  oT  His  Word,  namely  in  so  far 
as  God  extends  this  gift  to  man  and  thereby  gives  everything 
which  on  the  part  of  God  is  necessary  to  remove  the  natural  resist- 
ance, whether  man  now  accepts  the  gift  or  not." 

"This  contempt  and  this  (wilful)  resistance  is  superadded  to 
the  natural  and  does  not  come  into  existence  until  the  Word  has 
become  known This  wilful  resistance,  however,  de- 
serves that  the  Word  of  God  be  taken  away,  whether  man  is 
already  actually  converted  or  not;  and  this  because  tlie  manifes- 
tation of  this  contempt  could  have  been  overcome  by  the  grace 
which  the  preached  Word  at  all  times  and  everywhere  bestows 
upon  every  intelligent  and  attentive  hearer.  For  this  first  grace 
of  God  prepares  its  own  way  in  man  so  that  he  can  permit  its 
operation,  and  requires  no  other  grace  to  precede  it.  .  .  .  It 
is  the  nature  of  the  Word  always  to  work  something,  and  first  of 
all  the  ability  in  man  so  that  he  will  be  in  a  condition  to  be  able 
to  refrain  from  resisting  the  activity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  seeks 
to  induce  him  to  assent."     (Page  14  etc.). 

Furthermore,  p.  274:  "No  man  does  anything,  or  co-ope- 
rates in  any  way,  towards  receiving  the  first  grace.  But  that  he 
does  not  resist  the  grace  which  properly  and  according  to  its 
nature  works  conversion,  is  due  to  the  impartation  of  the  first 
grace,  which  is  imparted  to  all,  so  that  they  can  refrain  from 
resistance.  God  has  resolved  to  convert  those  actually  who  do 
not  wilfully  resist  the  operation  of  divine  grace;  and  they  can 
refrain  from  this  resistance  by  virtue  of  the  grace  which  is 
imparted  to  all  hearers  of  the  Word." 

Quenstedt  speaks  in  the  same  way;  he  was  one  of  the  acutest 
of  the  orthodox  theologians  of  our  Church  (died  1088  as  professor 
at  Wittenberg).  He  speaks  of  conversion  as  follows:  "This  grace 
(prevenient  grace)  can  be  prevented,  and,  even  though  at  first 
admitted,  again  rejected  although  no  man  can  escape  the  first 
knocking  of  grace,  he  nevertheless,  after  having  experienced  the 
first  motions  caused  by  prevenient  grace,  can  wilfully  reject  this 
grace,  Matt.  23,  37;  Luke  7,  20.  This  rejection  is  not  caused  by 
every  resistance;  not  by  the  original  or  inborn,  the  very  purpose 
of  prevenient  grace  being  to  overcome  this;  nor  by  every  inward 
resistance  stirring  actually  in  the  heart;  nor  by  every  resistance 
actually  manifesting  itself  outwardly,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  meets 


Thesis  IV.  697 

in  the  person  who  is  to  be  converted  —  but  it  is  caused  by  the 
actual  pertinacious  resistance  opposed  especially  to  the  means  of 
grace."     (Theol.  Didac.  Polem.  III.,  edition  1696,  p.  495.) 

In  the  following  thesis  he  states  that  that  prevenient  grace 
hinders  and  bridles  the  inborn,  as  well  as  the  real  simple  and  con- 
querable resistance  of  unregenerate  man;  and  then  he  contmues: 
"We  say  emphatically,  the  actual  simple  and  conquerable  resist- 
ance. For  we  do  not  here  mean  that  resistance,  which  on  account 
-of  wilful  wickedness  is  insuperable  and  obdurate,  and  which  takes 
place  when  man  obstinately  denies  and  rejects  what  has  been 
clearly  shown  from  the  Scriptures ;  which  insuperable  and  wicked 
resistance  God  punishes  by  the  denial  of  richer  grace." 

In  answer  to  the  objection:  "If  grace  is  resistible  then  the 
most  important  work  necessary  for  our  salvation,  namely  repent- 
ance and  faith,  will  be  placed  in  man's  free  will  as  the  immediate 
cause"  —  Ouenstedt  replies:  "Faith  and  repentance  is  not  thereby 
placed  in  the  power  of  free  will,  but  resistance  and  non-resist- 
ance; and  the  distinction  is  as  great  as  that  between  illuminating 
a  room  and  presenting  no  obstacles  to  the  illumination  to  be 
furnished."     (III.,  p.  514.) 

In  the  article  of  predestination  Ouenstedt  writes:  "We 
must  distinguish  between  any  relation  whatever  of  faith  to  elec- 
tion, whatever  it  may  be  —  as  also  the  effect  can  be  placed 
in  relation  to  its  causes,  and  the  accident  to  its  subject  —  and 
between  an  essential  relation.  Not  the  former,  but  the  latter 
is  here  spoken  of.  For  faith,  or  rather  the  foreseen  non-rejec- 
tion of  the  faith  which  prevenient  grace  offers,  is  the  essential 
condition  of  the  subject  for  election."     (Ill,  p.  30.) 

As  an  explanation  of  the  passage.  Acts  13,  48:  "As  many 
as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed,"  Ouenstedt  writes:  "The 
Calvinists  wrongly  seek  to  prove  by  these  words  that  foreseen 
constant  faith  does  not  belong  to  the  counsel  of  election,  since 
it  is  only  the  effect  or  result  of  election.  For  the  word  tassein 
is  never  used  in  the  Scriptures  of  eternal  election;  and  the  word 
taxis  does  not  signify  an  absolute  decree,  but  a  divine  order 
which  must  be  followed  in  time;  wherefore  also  the  tetagmenoi 
are  not  those  predestinated  (\^erordnete),  but  those  ordered 
(Geordnete),  who  keep  themselves  in  and  under  the  divine  order. 
Those  who  keep  the  divinely  prescribed  order,  enter  into  it, 
follow  it,  as  Franz  interprets.  They  are  described  in  this  passage 
as  the  opposite  of  verse  40.     These  are  the  tetagmenoi  (in  the 


698  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

order),  those  are  the  atactoi  (out  of  the  order,  disorderly).  But 
these  latter  were  not  people  simply  rejected  in  eternity,  but 
rejected  as  (in  time)  disturbing  the  taxis,  the  divinely  instituted 
order,  as  treading  it  under  foot,  as  rejecting  God's  Word,  etc. 
Here,  therefore,  we  treat  of  the  taxis,  which  refers  to  the  order 
in  time  offered  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  does  not 
refer  to  eternal  election.  The  meaning  of  the  words,  therefore, 
is:  Only  those  come  to  believe  who  submitted  themselves  to 
the  divine  order,  permitted  themselves  to  be  drawn,  rejected 
not  the  Word  of  grace,  but  received  it  with  joy.  .  .  .  ^gidius 
Hunnius  gives  the  excellent  paraphrase:  "There  came  to  believe 
and  receive  the  gift  of  faith  as  many  as  followed  the  order  which 
God  had  appointed  in  His  counsel  for  the  attaining  of  eternal 
life."     (Ed.  1096,  HI.,  p.  42.) 

We  do  not  introduce  these  testimonies,  which  might  be  mul- 
tiplied indefinitely,  in  order  to  establish  our  doctrine  of  predesti- 
nation on  the  authority  of  the  "fathers."  We  know  that  proof  for 
our  doctrine  must  be  brought  solely  from  the  Word  of  God.  We 
only  desire  to  show  in  these  testimonies  that  the  old  fathers  did 
indeed  and  even  in  greater  measure  than  we  ourselves  emphasize 
a  varying  conduct  towards  the  means  of  grace,  a  permitting 
oneself  to  be  converted  through  the  power  and  operation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  a  distinction  between  natural  and  wilful  resist- 
ance. Our  opinion  is  not  that  certain  phrases  and  expressions 
are  established  as  unassailable  simply  for  the  reason  that  the 
"fathers"  employed  them.  But  this  is  what  we  claim,  if  our 
doctrine  of  predestination  is  necessarily  one  that  injures  and 
upsets  tlie  "by  grace  alone"  because  it  contains  these  expres- 
sions, then  the  very  same  thing  applies  also  to  the  doctrine  of 
predestination  taught  by  the  fathers.  For  they  have  repeatedly 
used  the  same  terms,  and  in  the  same  sense  as  we  use  them;  they 
emphasized  them  over  against  the  Calvinists  at  least  as  much  as 
we  emphasize  them  over  against  the  Calvinism  of  Missouri;  and 
they  have  not  rejected  all  human  merit,  all  co-operation  of  man 
for  his  conversion,  more  strongly  than  we  now  reject  it.  If 
then  our  doctrine  of  predestination  must  be  branded  as  syner- 
gistic and  Pelagian  in  the  opinion  of  some,  these  people  ought 
to  have  at  least  so  much  sense  of  justice  and  honesty  as  to  give' 
the  same  appellation  to  the  same  thing  in  others,  also  in  our 
Lutheran  dogmaticians.  They  should  have  the  courage  to  say 
frankly  and  freely  what  they  have  said  indirectly  and  by  implica- 


Thesis  IV.  699 

tion  in  condemning  our  doctrine,  namely  that  our  Lutheran 
fathers  have  for  300  years  injured  the  "by  faith  alone"  by  their 
doctrine  of  predestination.  Something  of  this  kind  "L.  u.  W." 
has  finally  undertaken.  P.  Stockhardt  writes  in  the  last  issue: 
"They  (the  dogmaticians)  desire  to  some  extent  at  least  to  explain 
and  render  plausible  to  reason  this  wonderful  mystery  of  the 
discretio  personarum  (the  selection  of  persons).  And  in  this 
they  have  erred  and  have  deviated  from  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Symbol."  (April  1882,  p.  158.)  Frankly  and  freely  Pastor 
Stockhardt  here  accuses  theologians  of  the  time  subsequent  to 
the  F.  C.  of  deviating  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession 
in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  It  is  certainly  a 
terrible  slander,  which  is  thus  thrown  upon  Lutheran  theologians, 
yea  upon  the  entire  Lutheran  Church  after  the  F.  C,  in  the 
assertion  that  this  Church,  immediately  after  setting  up  its  Con- 
fession, deviated  from  it,  and  that  the  prominent  theologians 
of  this  Church  were  in  reality  already  rationalist.  Poor  Lutheran 
Church!  You  have  all  this  time  falsely  called  yourself  the 
"orthodox  church"'!  This  glory  was  nothing  but  an  empty 
dream,  till  now  at  last  the  light  of  a  new  reformation  has  dawned 
in  St.  Louis.  —  But  however  lamentable  the  fact,  that  men  who 
claim  to  be  Lutheran  theologians  heap  such  shame  upon  their 
own  Church,  it  is  nevertheless  at  least  an  open  and  honest 
•declaration  which  has  thus  been  made,  and  therefore  a  hundred 
times  preferable  to  the  deceptive  arts  hitherto  practiced  for  so 
long  a  time  by  "L.  u.  W."  Now  all  may  know  indeed  what 
is  the  position  of  St.  Louis  in  regard  to  the  dogmaticians.  But 
how  do  our  opponents  proceed  now?  They  attempt  to  tell 
the  world  that  our  doctrine  of  predestination  and  that  of  the 
dogmaticians  are  two  totally  different  things.  In  the  heat  of 
combat  our  old  dogmaticians,  they  say,  did  indeed  here  and 
there  utter  an  ambiguous  and  inconvenient  expression ;  but  that 
was  cfll.  Essentially  their  doctrine  is  in  perfect  accord  with  that 
of  Missouri.  And  Missouri  does  not  think  of  assailing  or  of 
even  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  the  dogmaticians.  Only  an  expres- 
sion here  and  there  Missouri  does  not  like  to  appropriate.  Their 
war  is  not  against  the  doctrine  of  these  faithful  witnesses,  but 
altogether  against  our  doctrine.  The  dogmaticians  have  noth- 
ing in  common  with  our  doctrine.  We  may  continue  to  say  that 
we  ascribe  to  man  not  the  least  merit  of  his  own,  not  the  least 
power  for  conversion  —  all  that  is  mere  wind.     We  are  nothing^ 


700  A  Testimo7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

but  synergists  and  Pelagians;  have  always  been  such  in  reality; 
never  taught  correctly  concerning  justification;  make  faith  in 
the  good  old  papistic  way  a  work  of  man,  for  the  sake  of  which 
he  is  justified.  And  this  secret  ulcer  has  now  finally  broken 
out  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  We  are  now  revealed  as 
people  who  have  attacked  the  very  heart  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 
This  appears  undeniably  from  the  expressions  we  employ  in 
explaining  the  doctrine  of  election.  The  dogmaticians  indeed 
used  the  same  expressions;  but  their  use  of  them  does  not  mark 
a  synergistic  and  Pelagian  doctrine  of  predestination,  for  they 
onlv  employed  these  expressions  in  opposition  to  the  Calvinists, 
while  we  employ  them  in  opposition  to  Missouri.  If  we  were 
not  synergists,  we  would  not  assail  the  orthodox  (?)  Missouri 
Synod. 

Is  this  not  indeed  devious  weight  and  measure?  —  But  there 
remains  only  one  either  —  or.  Either  these  expressions  are  in 
reality  undeniable  proofs  of  synergism.  And  then  all  who  use 
them  are  synergists  and  Pelagians,  the  dogmaticians  no  less  than 
we.  And  if  Dr.  W.  really  wants  to  be  zealous  for  the  "truth  of  the 
gospel,"  he  must  fight  against  the  predestination  doctrine  of  the 
dogmaticians  and  reject  it  as  fiercely  as  he  fights  against  and 
rejects  ours.  —  Or  these  expressions  in  themselves  prove  nothing 
in  regard  to  "synergistic  and  Pelagian  doctrine  of  predestination." 
Then  they  prove  nothing  in  regard  to  ourselves.  Then  Dr.  W. 
must  proceed  to  bring  other,  really  undeniable  proofs,  before  he 
will  be  able  to  accuse  justly.  And  as  long  as  he  has  not  furnished 
these  proofs,  we  declare  his  accusation  to  be  a  grave  wrong,  a 
gross  calumniation,  a  calumniation  equal  to  the  explicit  slander 
of  our  old  dogmaticians  as  synergists. 

When  one  of  the  "opponents"'  of  Missouri  would  not  promise 
imconditionally  at  the  Chicago  Conference,  not  to  assail  publicly 
in  the  future  the  doctrine  of  Missouri,  which  according  to  that 
^'opponent's"  conviction  was  false,  Dr.  W.  uttered  the  threat,  that, 
if  new  attacks  should  provoke  him  to  fight,  his  opponents  would 
be  astonished  at  the  language  he  would  be  compelled  to  use  in 
publicly  characterizing  his  enemies.  And  he  has  kept  his  word. 
He  has  not  hesitated  to  brand  his  opponents  as  synergists  and 
Arch-Pelagians  on  account  of  expressions  and  terms  which  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  the  Confession,  Luther,  and  the  dogma- 
ticians employ.  Certainly  this  is  astonishing.  And  especially 
when  we  recall  that  he  himself  has  taught  and  to  this  dav  has 


Thesis  IV.  701 

not  retracted,  the  very  same  doctrine  which  he  now  attacks  as 
heretical     To  prove  this  we  will  quote  only  a  single  passage 
from  the  synodical  Report  of  the  Northern  District  for  the  year 
1S73.     This  Report  contains  a  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  con- 
version on  the  basis  of  theses  furnished  by  Dr.  W.     The  doctrine 
is  not  discussed  merely  in  passing,  but  the  purpose  of  the  whole 
discussion  was  a  thorough  treatment  of  this  doctrine  especially. 
According  to  the  introduction  those  points  in  particular  are  to 
be  treated  in  which  we  meet  various  errors.     If  anywhere,  this 
is  where  Missouri  has  expressed  itself  on  the  doctrine  of  con- 
version.     We  are,  therefore,   certainly  justified   in   considering 
everything  we  find  here  as  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  W.,  as  also  of 
the  Missouri  Synod  itself.     And  what  expressions  do  we  find? 
After  the  above  passage  from  Quenstedt  regarding  different  kinds 
of  resistance  is  quoted,  we  read  on  page  49:    "Divine  grace  can 
be  divided  according  to  its  manifestations  into  three   degrees: 
1)   prcvenicnt  grace,   that  is   the   operation   of  the   Holy   Spirit 
which  thust  precede  when  God  converts  a  person  in  the  ordinary 
way;    2)  efficient  grace,  by  which  God  produces  faith;    and  3) 
co-operative  grace,  which  co-operates  with  the  strength  already 
dwelling  in  regenerate  man.     As  man  is  by  nature  he  can  do 
nothing   but   resist   the   operations   of  the    Holy    Spirit;     wilful 
resistance   he  can.   not  indeed   absolutely,   but  to   some   extent, 
refrain  from  by  his  own  power.     But  we  must  remember  that 
our  fathers   understood  by   wilful   resistance   wicked,    obstinate 
resistance.     This  obstinate  resistance  man  can  refrain  from  by 
his  own  power  when  grace  comes  to  him,  but  not  the  resist- 
ance in  his  will  and  purpose  (willige,  vorsatzliche)  which  is  found 
in  every  sonl  even  in  true  Christiafts."     According  to  Quenstedt 
a  threefold  distinction  is  here  made  in  regard  to  resistance:    the 
inborn;     the    simple,    actual;     and    the    wilful,    obstinate.     The 
inborn  and  the  actual  are  found  in  all  men,  at  least  in  all  adults, 
even  still  in  true  Christians.     This  the   Holy  Spirit  alone  can 
overcome;    it,  however,  does  rtot  prevent  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.-    His  work  is  prevented  only  by  the  wilful  resistance.     But 
this  wilful  resistance  man  can,  although  not  absolutely,  yet  to 
some  extent,  refrain  from  bv  his  own  strength.     Here  evidently 
the  omission  of  wilful  resistance  is  placed  in  the   categorv  of 
civil  righteousness  (justitia  civilis)  concerning  which  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  declares  that  man  "hath  some  liberty  to  work" 
this.     He  indeed  has  this  strength  only  to  some  extent;    hence 


702  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

grace  must  certainly  be  added;  but  when  grace  has  been  added 
then  man  can  refrain  from  wilful  resistance,  and  that  of  his  own 
strength.  This  is  what  Missouri  teaches  in  so  many  words. 
And  let  us  again  recall,  this  is  not  in  passing,  not  merely  once 
in  some  sermon,  but  in  a  sy nodical  Report  which  sets  out  to 
elucidate  thoroughly  the  doctrine  of  conversion  particularly  in 
those  points  which  are  liable  to  error.  —  Should  it  seem  possible 
then  for  Dr.  W.  to  accuse  us  as  synergists  and  Pelagians  on 
account  of  a  doctrine  which  he  himself  has  confessed,  and  that 
in  the  strongest  of  terms,  a  doctrine  which,  since  Missouri  claims 
not  to  have  deviated  from  its  former  teachings,  is  even  now  yet 
that  of  the  Missouri  Synod!- — Who  does  not  recall  the  word 
of  the  apostle:  "Wherein  thou  judgest  another,  thou  condemnest 
thyself;  for  thou  that  judgest  doest  the  same  things,"  Rom.  2,  1. 
When  Missouri  condemns  our  doctrine  as  synergism,  it  pro- 
nounces judgment  upon  itself. 

But  the  claim  is  that  we  declare  faith  to  be  the  cause  which 
impels  or  moves  God  in  election.  This  is  Dr.  W.'s  claim  — 
things  are  very  easily  claimed  —  and  he  appeals  to  an  essay  in 
"Altes  und  Neues,"  II.,  p.  7.  But  his  claim  is  false.  Never 
did  "A.  u.  N."  form  the  proposition:  "Faith  is  the  cause  which 
impels  God  in  election."  "Who  says  this  lies"  —  this  noble 
expression  would  be  the  answer  of  Dr.  W.  in  such  a  case.  The 
passage  in  "A.  u.  N."  referred  to  is  as  follows:  "Dr.  W.  certainly 
knows  the  fathers  as  scarcely  another  man  does.  Why  then 
does  he  try  to  make  us  believe  that  our  orthodox  fathers  abso- 
lutely rejected  the  expression,  'faith  is  the  cause  moving  God 
in  election'?"  —  These  words,  according  to  Dr.  W.,  contain  a 
question  so  silly  that  only  one  who  knows  nothing  at  all  about 
the  history  of  dogma  could  have  asked  it,  but  at  the  same  time 
reveals  as  clearly  as  possible  our  synergistic  Pelagianism.  Now 
these  are  indeed  two  bold,  yet  altogether  untrue  statements. 
The  question  asked  is  far  from  being  foolish,  for  it  is  a  fact,  that 
a  large  number  of  orthodox  theologians,  instead  of  rejecting 
this  expression,  themselves  actually  used  it:  Musseus,  Baier, 
Scherzer,  Bechmann,  and  others.  And  even  those  who  did  not 
care  to  use  the  expression  themselves  did  not  absolutely  reject 
it.  In  its  Pelagian  construction,  when  faith  is  taken  as  man's 
own  free  deed,  all  the  dogmaticians,  as  the  article  in  "A.  u.  N." 
explicitly  notes,  rejected  it;  but  not  in  every  construction,  not 
absolutely.      These   are   facts    which   only   a   person    altogether 


Thesis  IV.  703 

ignorant  of  the  history  of  dogma  will  undertake  to  deny.  —  But 
what  shall  we  say,  when  Dr.  W.  who  knows  the  facts  as  well  as 
any  one  can  know  them  speaks  as  though  the  very  contrary  were 
true?  And  besides,  it  is  not  at  all  absolutely  false  to  call  faith 
the  cause  moving  God  in  election.  It  would  certainly  be  false  — 
and  "A.  u.  N."  is  careful  to  say  so  —  to  consider  faith  as  man's 
own  work,  or  even  as  a  divinely  wrought  quality  and  condition 
of  man,  and  then  to  ascribe  to  this  faith  causative  or  motive 
power.  But  in  so  far  as  faith  embraces  Jesus  Christ  and  pos- 
sesses Christ  it  can  indeed,  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  i.  e.  of  His 
merit  which  it  embraces,  be  termed  the  cause  moving  God,  as  in 
justification,  so  also  in  election.  To  be  sure,  it  is  not  faith  itself, 
but  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  embraced  by  faith,  which  moves 
God.  But  since  faith  is,  as  it  were,  the  vessel  containing  this 
treasure,  I  have  a  perfect  right  to  call  faith,  because  of  the  treasure 
it  contains,  the  impelling  cause.  This  is  frequently  done  by  the 
Scriptures  themselves.  Thus,  for  instance,  Paul  writes,  Rom. 
4,  5:  "But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  Him  that 
justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness." 
Rom.  5,  1:  "Therefore,  being  justified  by  faith."  According 
to  the  original  text  the  words  read  "out  of  faith."  Faith  is  thus 
called  the  source  whence  justification  flows.  And  in  Gal.  2,  16, 
Paul  writes:  "Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works 
of  the  law,  but  by  the  faith  of  Jes,us  Christ,  even  we  have  believed 
in  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  the  faith  of  Christ, 
and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law."  According  to  the  original  text 
the  words  read:  "be  justified  out  of  faith  and  not  out  of  works"! 
So  then  justification  flows  from  faith.  —  If  the  apostle  Paul  did' 
not  happen  to  be  Paul,  Missouri  would  proceed  to  manufacture 
this  expression  into  a  proof  of  his  synergistic  and  Pelagian 
doctrine  of  predestination.  —  How  often,  moreover,  do  we 
find  Luther  saying:  for  the  sake  of  faith,  on  account  of  faith  — 
thereby  following  Paul  in  calling  faith  a  cause  moving  God;  to 
be  sure,  not  for  its.  own  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of 
Christ  which  it  apprehends.  Rightly  therefore  the  old  theologian 
Bechmann  writes:  "Faith  may  be  considered  in  respect  to  its 
object,  namely  the  merit  of  Christ  which  it  apprehends;  when 
so  considered  it  has  the  power  to  move  God;  and  thus  faith  is 
a  cause  of  election,  in  so  far  as,  foreseen  of  God  in  eternity,  it 
moved  God  through  the  power  of  Christ's  merit  to  elect  some." 
(Theol.  Polem.  p.  704.) 


704  A  Testimony  Agai?ist  the  False  Doctrine^  Etc. 

Therefore,  even  if  we  had  declared  faith  to  be  the  cause 
moving  God  in  election,  this  would  be  no  proof  of  synergism^ 
this  would  not  by  any  means  put  us  into  the  footsteps  of  Pela- 
gians, Jews,  and  Turks,  but  only  in  the  footsteps  of  the  dogma- 
ticians,  of  Luther,  and  of  Paul,  who  have  no  scruples  whatever 
about  describing  faith  as  a  cause  moving  God.  But  we  have 
not  even  done  this  much,  we  have  never  used  this  expression  im 
stating  or  establishing  our  doctrine  of  election.  And  Missouri 
know  this  well.  Notwithstanding,  they  attempt  by  all  means  tO' 
twist  this  phrase  into  a  proof  of  our  synergistic  and  Pelagian: 
teaching. — It  is  not  difficult  to  find  the  reason  for  this  deceptive- 
and  dishonest  procedure.  We  have  raised  the  accusation,  grave- 
indeed,  yet  only  too  true,  against  them  of  attempting  to  introduce 
an  altogether  unbiblical  and  un-Lutheran,  essentially  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  election.  We  have  demonstrated  the  truth  of  our- 
accusation  in  an  altogether  incontestable  way.  Consequently, 
they  are  in  a  difficulty.  They  will  not  retract.  They  are  bounds 
to  be  in  the  right.  Hence,  with  customary  dexterity  they  seek 
to  snatch  the  sword  from  their  opponent's  hand  and  to  wield  it 
against  the  opponent  himself;  the  Calvinistic  cloven  hoof  is 
tucked  away  as  carefully  as  possible,  and  the  matter  is  made  to- 
appear  as  though  the  Missourian  doctrine  of  election  consisted 
simply  in  ascribing  man's  conversion,  justification,  preservation, 
and  final  salvation  altogether  to  the  free  grace  of  God.  Thus  the- 
claim  is  supported,  that  when  we  opponents  fight  against  the  Mis- 
sourian doctrine  of  election,  we  are  fighting  in  reality  against  the 
"by  grace  alone",  and  showing  ourselves  to  be  miserable  syner- 
gists. In  this  way  Missouri  hopes  to  annihilate  the  hated  "oppo- 
nents" and  to  rescue  its  orthodox  fame.  And  to  give  some  color 
at  least  to  their  purpose,  they  drag  all  possible  and  impossible- 
things  together,  substitute  what  they  need  where  it  is  wanting, 
omit  what  does  not  suit  them — and  then  cry  out:  "Consequently 
there  is  no  doubt  whatever  but  what  our  opponents  cherish  a 
synergistic  and  Pelagian  doctrine  of  predestination." — It  is  the 
very  same  dishonest  game  played  of  old  by  the  Calvinists  against 
our  fathers.  They  too  set  up  the  claim  that  in  their  doctrine 
of  election  everything  was  ascribed  to  the  free  grace  of  God. 
But  when  our  fathers  rejected  their  unconditional  election,  they 
again  and  again  raised  the  cry  that  our  fathers  were  injuring  the- 
"by  grace  alone."     Our  fathers  might  show  ever  so  clearly  that. 


Thesis  IV.  705 

the  point  at  issue  between  them  and  the  Calvinists  was  not 
whether  everything  was  free  grace  or  not,  but  whether  God  had 
appointed  according  to  the  free,  unconditional  purpose  of  His 
secret  will  a  few  among  men  in  preference  to  the  rest  unto  faith 
and  unto  salvation;  they  might  disclaim  and  guard  themselves 
ever  so  decidedly  against  all  synergism  and  Pelagianism — it  was 
all  of  no  avail;  the  Calvinists  simply  continued  to  hurl  the  accu- 
sation against  our  fathers:  You  are  robbing  God's  free  grace 
of  its  honor!  Missouri  to-day  proceeds  in  precisely  the  same 
way.  We  may  show  ever  so  incontestably  that  the  point  at  issue 
between  us  is  not  whether  a  man  receives  his  entire  salvation 
from  grace  alone  or  not,  but  whether  God  according  to  the  mere 
pleasure  of  His  will  appointed  some  unto  faith  and  unto  salva- 
tion, while  He  did  not  so  appoint  others;  we  may  continue  with 
our  fathers  to  call  the  mercy  of  God  and  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ 
the  only  causes  moving  God  in  election;  we  may  deny  ever  so 
emphatically  all  co-operation  of  man  in  the  work  of  conversion^ 
and  thus  also  all  merit  of  man,  and  ascribe  it  to  grace  alone — it 
is  all  of  no  avail.  Since  we  reject  the  Missovirian  election  accord- 
ing to  "mere  good  pleasure"  as  a  Calvinistic  error,  we  must  be 
synergists  and  Pelagians  who  attack  the  article  of  justification 
by  grace  alone. — But  if  they  will,  let  them  repeat  their  accusa- 
tion as  often  and  as  long  as  they  please — it  strikes  us  as  little  as 
did  the  accusation  of  the  Calvinists  our  fathers.  In  unison  with 
our  fathers  we  will  hold  fast  immovably:  "Not  of  works,  but 
by  grace  alone,  for  the  sake  of  Christ."  But  in  unison  with  our 
fathers  we  will  also  hold  fast:  By  faith  alone,  that  it  may  be 
by  grace. 


THESIS  V. 

God  has  elected  in  view  of  faith. 

Election,  as  we  have  seen,  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel.  The 
Gospel,  however,  points  us,  as  we  have  seen  furthermore,  to  the 
merit  of  Christ  as  the  only  and  exclusive  cause  of  all  salvation, 
therefore  also  of  the  election  to  eternal  life.  God  has  not 
appointed  men  to  salvation  on  account  of  their  own  works,  their 
own  merit,  their  own  worthiness,  but  solely  for  the  sake  of  the 
merit  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  ground  and  the  cause  of  election  do^ 
not,  even  in  the  smallest  measure,  he  in  us,  but  alone  in  Christ 
and  the  mercy  of  God.  As  however  God's  mercy,  so  also  the 
merit  of  Christ,  considered  in  itself,  is  altogether  universal.  Christ 
is  the  propitiation  not  only  for  the  sins  of  the  elect,  but  also  for 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  In  Him  the  justification  of  life  has- 
come  upon  all.  In  Christ's  merit,  therefore,  considered  merely 
from  the  standpoint  of  its  acquisition,  there  can  be  grounded  no- 
choice  from  among  sinners,  since  it  has  been  acquired  for  all  alike. 
If  Christ's  merit  with  regard  to  its  acquisition  alone  had  decided 
election,  then  all  sinners  would  have  been  elected.  But  now  all 
sinners  are  not  elected;  God  has  really  made  a  selection,  He 
has  appointed  some  in  preference  to  others  unto  salvation. 
Accordingly  the  merit  of  Christ  must  have  been  considered  also 
with  respect  to  its  appropriation,  which  takes  place  through  faith. 
The  merit  of  Christ  apprehended  by  faith  must  have  decided  who 
among  redeemed  sinners  was  to  be  saved  and  who  was  not. 
When  God  in  eternity  finally  separated  those  who  alone  shall  be 
saved  from  those  who  are  not  saved.  He  must  have  sought  this 
appropriation  of  the  merit  of  Christ  by  faith.  What  the  Apology 
says:  "Faith  makes  the  difference  between  those  who  are  saved 
and  those  who  are  damned"  —  held  good  also  with  regard  to 
eternal  election.  Foreseen  faith,  or  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ 
apprehended  in  faith  and  foreknown  by  God,  made  the  difiference 
between  those  that  were  elected  and  those  that  were  not  elected. 
In  short:  Election  took  place  in  view  of  faith.  And  that  is  what 
our  fifth  thesis  teaches. 

(706) 


Thesis    V.  707 

With  this  thesis  we  have  now  come  to  the  real  point  om 
which  the  present  doctrinal  controversy  turns.  This  doctrine,, 
namely,  that  God  has  elected  in  view  of  faith,  Missouri  has  rejected. 
and  condemned  as  false,  and  has  set  up  on  the  other  hand  a  doc- 
trine that,  in  its  innerm.ost  essence  is  nothing  but  simple  Cal- 
vinism. Missouri  maintains  that  faith  dare  in  no  sense  be  con- 
ceived as  a  cause  of  election,  not  even  as  a  secondary  cause, 
not  as  a  condition,  in  general  not  as  a  presupposition;  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  know  nothing  of  the  foresight  of  faith  as  a  pre- 
supposition of  election;  that  the  doctrine,  that  God  first  foresaw 
faith  and  thereupon  appointed  just  those  unto  salvation  whom 
He  foresaw  as  believers,  is  contrary  to  Scripture.  Missouri  holds 
that  faith,  on  the  contrary,  is  dependent  on  the  choice  of  persons, 
that  it  is  an  object  and  a  goal  and  a  result  of  election;  that  God 
has  chosen  the  elect  unto  the  call  to  faith  and  unto  perseverance 
in  faith;  that  election  is  the  fountain  whence  all  this  flows;  that 
God  has  not  acted  according  to  the  rule  of  the  revealed  counsel 
of  grace:  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved",  but 
according  to  a  hidden  rule  of  His  secret  will;  that  the  merit  of 
Jesus  Christ  apprehended  in  faith  has  not  decided  what  sinner 
shall  be  saved  in  preference  to  others,  but  alone  the  free  pleasure 
of  the  divine  will.  —  The  point  of  controversy  between  us  and 
Missouri  is  not  this:  Is  man's  whole  salvation  due  only  to  the 
grace  of  God,  or  in  part  also  to  himself?  It  is  true  that  Mis- 
sourians  try  to  present  the  question  in  this  form,  and  then  proceed 
to  assert  that  they  ascribe  everything  to  the  grace  of  God,  whilst 
we  want  man  too  credited  with  a  part  in  his  salvation.  But  this 
is  false  pretence.  We  are  agreed  with  Missouri  that  all  is  of  grace. 
That  is  not  the  question  at  all  in  the  present  controversy.  The 
point  of  dispute  between  us  and  Missouri  is  this:  How  did  it  come 
that  of  sinners,  all  alike  lost  in  Adam,  and  all  alike  redeemed  in 
Christ,  a  certain  number  was  chosen  in  preference  to  others  and 
appointed  unto  the  certain  attainment  of  salvation?  Was  this 
determined  by  the  merit  of  Christ  as  apprehended  by  faith,  or  — ■ 
by  the  free  pleasure  of  a  secret  will  of  God?  This,  this  is  the  point 
of  controversy  —  and  this  alone.  Missouri  together  with  the 
Calvinists  aflfirms  the  latter,  we  together  with  the  orthodox  teach- 
ers of  our  Church  the  former.  —  The  question  therefore  in  the 
present  conflict  is  by  no  means  about  trifles,  about  unessential 
subordinate  points  of  Christian  doctrine,  about  theological  subtle- 
ties.    We  are  concerned  about  a  matter  as  important  as  any  that 


708  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

€ver  engaged  the  attention  of  the  American-Lutheran  Church 
in  the  conflicts  she  has  waged.  The  question  refers  to  nothing 
less  than  the  principal  and  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  whole 
Gospel,  that  the  salvation  of  a  sinner  depends  wholly  upon  the 
merit  of  Jesus  Christ  apprehended  by  faith,  and  upon  nothing 
else,  whether  human  works  or  a  secret  will  of  God.  We  are  con- 
cerned about  the  truth  of  the  universal  gracious  will  revealed  in 
the  Gospel.  This  universal  gracious  will  of  God  is  undermined 
and  overthrown  by  the  Missouri  doctrine  of  an  election  unto  faith 
in  accordance  with  the  mere  divine  pleasure,  even  though  this 
will  be  not  expressly  "denied.  And  because  we  wovild  hold  fast 
to  this  universal  gracious  plan  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  we  reject 
the  Neo-Missourian  doctrine  of  a  choice  unto  salvation  accord- 
ing to  the  mere  pleasure  of  God,  and  confess  with  our  fathers: 
God  has  elected  in  view  of  faith. 

The  fact,  that  we  with  our  fathers  confess  this  doctrine,  does 
not  prove  it  to  be  a  true  doctrine,  just  as  little  as  its  condemnation 
by  Missouri  makes  it  a  false  doctrine.  Everything  depends  here 
upon  proving  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  from  the  Word  of  God. 
Such  proof  we  shall  now  furnish,  and  we  shall  first  consider  those 
passages  that  treat  expressely  of  election.  From  these  passages 
it  will  be  proved  incontestibly  that  God,  according  to  the  Scrip- 
ture., has  not  elected  unto  faith  but  in  view  of  faith. 

The  first  passage  to  be  considered  is  Matt.  22,  1-14.  In  the 
parable  of  a  marriage  supper  Christ  pictures  to  us  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven.  The  king  has  prepared  the  feast  and  sent  out  the 
servants  to  call  the  guests  to  the  marriage.  It  is  his  earnest  will 
that  all  the  guests,  none  excepted,  should  participate  in  the  mar- 
riage feast.  But  this  royal  purpose  is  not  realized,  for  the  guests 
will  not  come.  He  indeed  sends  out  again  other  servants;  but 
those  invited  despise  these  also,  yes,  some  even  scoff  at  them  and 
slay  them.  Then  the  king,  in  his  anger,  punishes  these  guests, 
destroys  the  murderers  and  burns  their  city.  In  Order,  however, 
that  there  may  be  guests  at  the  marriage  table,  he  sends  his  ser- 
vants out  upon  the  highways,  to  invite  to  the  wedding  whomso- 
ever they  shall  find.  A  great  number  accepts  the  invitation,  the 
tables  are  all  furnished  with  guests.  But  not  all  those  that  have 
come  share  in  the  feast.  There  is  one  who  has  appeared  without 
a  wedding  garment.  Him  the  king  causes  to  be  cast  out.  And 
then  Christ  closes  the  parable  with  the  words:  "Many  are  called, 
but  few  are  chosen." 


Thesis   V.  ~  709 

This  parable  evidently  treats  of  eternal  election.  Missouri 
indeed  will  not  admit  it.  According  to  her  the  mere  fact  and 
nothing  beyond  the  fact  that  few  are  chosen  is  here  expressed. 
From  the  parable  itself,  she  says,  no  proof  as  regards  the  doctrine 
dare  be  taken.  But  that  is  not  true.  When  our  Lord  Himself 
declares  the  purpose  of  the  parable,  as  He  does  here,  there  cer- 
tainly can  be  drawn  from  the  parable  a  proof  for  the  doctrine.  As 
the  parable  of  the  sower  means  to  state  more  than  the  simple  fact, 
that  few  are  saved  by  the  preaching  of  the  Word,  showing  also 
how  it  comes  that  the  majority  hear  it  unto  damnation  and  only 
a  few  unto  salvation;  so  this  parable  also  declares  not  only  the 
fact  that  few  are  chosen,  but  at  the  same  time,  why  it  is  that  of 
the  many  called  only  few  are  chosen.  —  Our  Confessions  also  use 
this  parable  as  a  proof-passage  for  the  doctrine  of  election.  The 
Confessions  find  here  a  proof  not  only  for  the  fact,  that  the  num- 
ber of  the  elect  as  compared  with  the  called  is  small,  but  also  for 
the  statement,  that  in  the  doctrine  of  election  all  the  eternal  decrees 
of  God  "respecting  our  redemption,  calling,  justification  and  sal- 
vation" are  summed  up  together.  According  to  our  Confessions 
the  whole  eternal  decree  of  salvation  in  its  various  parts  is  summed 
up  in  this  parable,  and  at  the  same  time  the  explanation  is  given 
how  it  comes  that  only  few  are  chosen  and  saved.  And  so  it  is  in 
fact.  Christ  teaches  us  here,  that  God  desires  most  earnestly  the 
salvation  of  all  men.  He  had  already  in  eternity,  therefore,  or- 
dained Christ  to  be  the  Savior  of  the  whole  fallen  world,  per- 
mitted Him  to  become  man  in  the  fulness  of  time,  and  as  the  Lamb 
of  God  to  suffer  and  die  for  the  sins  of  all  sinners,  thus  reconciling 
the  lost  world  with  Himself.  And  now  in  order  that  all  redeemed 
sinners  may  become  partakers  of  eternal  salvation,  God  invites 
them  all  into  His  kingdom,  causes  His  grace  to  be  carried  and 
offered  to  all  with  equal  earnestness  and  power,  and  in  no  instance 
neglects  even  the  smallest  thing  that  is  necessary  to  save  the  indi- 
vidual. That  not  all  are  saved,  not  even  the  majority,  but  only 
a  few,  is  not  due  to  God's  will,  as  though  God  did  not  earnestly 
desire  that  all  should  come,  but  secretly  in  His  heart  from  the 
outset  had  picked  out  only  a  few  unto  salvation.  He  is  displeased 
with  those  that  do  not  come.  The  cause  of  their  remaining  away 
lies  altogether  in  the  conduct  of  men,  in  their  contempt  for  the 
divine  call  of  grace.  God  called  them,  but  they  would  not  come. 
Therefore  they  do  not  attain  unto  salvation.  —  Not  all,  however, 
curtly  reject  God's  gracious  call.     Many  come,  m?ny  hear  the 


710  A  Testhno7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

Word  and  outwardly  enter  the  church  of  God.  But  among  these 
also  a  separation  takes  place.  Then  "the  king  came  in,"  so  says 
the  parable,  to  see  his  guests  and  discovered  a  man  without  a 
■wedding  garment.  At  the  king's  question:  "Friend,  how  camest 
thou  in  hither  not  having  a  wedding  garment?"  the  man  wag 
•speechless.  By  his  silence  he  uttered  his  own  condemnation. 
His  speechlessness  proves  that  it  is  his  own  fault  that  he  is  found 
without  a  wedding  garment.  The  king  therefore  commands  that 
"he  be  cast  out  into  outer  darkness.  Why  is  he  cast  out?  Not 
l3ecause  the  king  had  not  prepared  a  wedding  garment  for  him, 
■or  had  not  offered  it  to  him  as  earnestly  as  to  the  others.  No; 
the  king  had  done  no  more  for  others  than. for  him,  and  no  less 
for  him  than  for  others.  He,  however,  had  proudly  refused  the 
profifered  garment,  and  was  therefore  discovered  without  it.  How- 
ever earnestly  it  had  been  offered  to  him  —  he  is  not  clothed 
therein;  and  that  is  the  reason  why  he  is  cast  out.  —  Why  do  the 
others  remain  seated  at  the  marriage  board?  Solely  because 
they  really  wear  this  proffered  garment,  because  the  king  sees 
them  thus  attired.  Whether  the  wedding  garment  has  been  put 
on  or  refused  decides  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  guests.  — 
The  wedding  garment  is  the  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ.  This 
garment  is  put  on  through  faith.  God's  eyes  will  seek  for  this 
righteousness  at  the  last  day.  Where  He  finds  this  righteousness 
appropriated  by  faith.  He  saves;  where  this  is  not  found.  He 
casts  out.  It  matters  not  if  Christ  have  died  for  a  man ;  it  matters 
not  if  all  grace  have  been  offered  to  him  ever  so  earnestly  and 
often;  it  matters  not  if  the  Spirit  of  God  have  worked  repeatedly 
upon  his  heart  by  means  of  the  Word:  if  God  does  not  behold  him 
clothed  in  Christ's  merit,  then  he  is  lost.  Those,  then,  that  are 
finally  saved,  inherit  this  blessing  because  they  are  in  Christ, 
because  they  have  laid  hold  of  His  merit  in  faith.  Not  our  own 
works  and  merits,  nor  on  the  other  hand,  the  mere  pleasure  of 
a  secret  divine  will,  but  only  the  appropriation  of  the  merit  of 
Jesus  Christ,  will  decide  which  sinners  shall  be  saved.  When  now 
Christ  closes  this  gospel,  which  enjoins  this  truth  so  impressively, 
declaring:  "Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen",  He  evidently 
teaches  that,  as  now  in  time,  so  also  in  eternity  not  the  mere 
pleasure  of  a  hidden  will,  but  alone  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ 
embraced  in  faith  decided  which  sinners  should  eternally  be 
saved.  As  now  in  time,  so  also  in  eternity  God's  eyes  sought  for 
faith.     As  now  in  time  God  justifies  and  saves  sinners  only  on 


Thesis    V.  711 

.account  of  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  apprehended  in  faith,  so  Hke- 
wise  in  eternity,  God  decreed  (or  elected)  to  justify  and  save  sin- 
ners only  for  the  sake  of  Jesus  Christ's  merits  appropriated  by 
faith.  Whomsoever  His  all-seeing  eye  beheld  in  the  wedding 
garment  of  His  Son,  him  He  appointed  unto  salvation;  whomso- 
ever He  found  without  this  garment,  him  He  was  compelled  to 
reject,  glad  as  He  would  have  been  to  elect  him.  Since  now  so 
few  permit  themselves  through  God's  universal  gracious  call  to 
be  enveloped  in  this  garment,  the  greater  number  wilfully  thrust- 
ing it  from  them,  it  necessarily  follows  that  of  the  many  called 
but  few  are  chosen.  —  Christ  teaches  also  in  this  parable  that  God 
has  elected  according  to  the  same  plan,  the  same  rule,  that  He 
follows  in  time  in  the  justification  and  in  the  salvation  of  the  sin- 
ner. This  parable,  therefore,  shows  us  that  God  has  certainly 
taken  the  rule  of  election  from  the  plan  of  salvation. 

Missouri   rejects   this   pure   biblical    Lutheran    explanation, 

and  opposes  it  by  an  interpretation  that  is  thoroughly  Calvinistic. 

Missouri  maintains:    When  Christ  says,  "Many  are  called,  but 

few  are  chosen".  He  means  to  say:  This  parable  sets  forth,  that 

it  appears  and  becomes  evident,  that  many  are  called,  but  only 

few  are  chosen.     Although  God  has  in  general  formed  a  decree  to 

save  all  men  according  to  an  appointed  order  of  salvation  and 

therefore  cau  ses  all  men  to  be  called,  still  He  has  according  to  a 

free  purpose,  already  in  eternity,  chosen  for  Himself  a  certain 

number  of  persons  and  has  resolved  to  call  them,  to  bring  them 

to  faith,  to  preserve  them  in  faith  and  to  save  them,  in  preference 

to  others.     And  these  who  have  thus  been  separated  must  be 

called,  must  come  to  faith,  must  persevere  in  faith  and  be  saved, 

.and  beside  them  none  else.     This  hidden  counsel  and  decree  now 

becarhe  evident  in  that  only  a  few  accepted  the  gracious  call  of 

God,  the  majority  rejecting  it.     According  to  this,  Christ  would 

say  here:   God's  having  in  His  hidden  counsel  appointed  only  a 

few  to  the  call,  to  faith,  to  perseverance  and  to  salvation  is  the 

reason  why  so  few  accept  the  Word.     Had  God,  as  He  could 

"just  as  easily"  have  done,  elected  many,  had  He  elected  all,  then 

.all  would  have  come  to  faith  and  to  salvation.     Is  this  not  true 

Calvinistic  exegesis?     The  universal  gracious  will,  intended  for 

all    with    equal    earnestness,    is    thus    in    fact    undermined    and 

■destroyed;    yea,  the  cause  why  so  many  are  not  saved  is  thus 

Teally  transferred  to  the  will  of  God,  however  much  this  may  be 


712  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

denied.     Luther  characterizes  such  exegesis  by  saying:    "This  is 
principally  a  godless  explanation." 

Our  Confessions  also  reject  this  exegesis  most  emphatically. 
Let  the  inquirer  read  attentively  §§  34-42,  where  it  is  stated  that 
the  calling  of  the  many  and  the  choosing  of  the  few  is  not  founded 
upon  the  secret  hidden  will  of  God,  as  though  God  in  the  universal 
decree  of  grace  revealed  in  the  Word  had  not  at  heart  had  an 
earnest  intention  with  respect  to  all,  but  with  respect  to  a  few 
only.  For  thus  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  would  be  made 
a  pretense,  yea,  a  lie.  Just  because  God  is  in  earnest  with  regard 
to  all  men  alike.  He  causes  His  gracious  will  to  be  preached  to  all 
and  to  be  sealed  unto  them  in  the  sacraments  and  private  absolu- 
tion. And  through  this  gracious  counsel  revealed  in  the  Word 
the  Holy  Ghost  would  operate  upon  all  that  hear  the  Word,  in 
order  that  they  may  be  enlightened,  converted, '  and  saved. 
Where  this  effect  is  not  attained,  it  is  not  because  He  did  not 
desire  to  save  such  persons;  nor  is  it  because  God's  gracious  call 
to  them  was  not  active  and  efBcacious.  But,  earnest  and  effica- 
cious as  this  universal  gracious  will  is,  it  does  not  everywhere 
achieve  its  purpose;  that  is,  it  does  not  necessarily  convert  and 
save  all.  This  will  contains  a  condition  upon  which  God  makes 
its  realization  depend:  it  is  an  ordered  will,  and  only  in  its  order 
is  it  executed.  God  has  ordained  in  His  eternal  counsel  "that 
He  will  justify  and  save  all  those  who,  through  true  faith,  receive 
Christ;  He  has  also  determined  in  His  counsel  that  He  will 
harden,  reprobate,  and  condemn  those  who  are  called  through 
the  Word,  if  they  reject  the  Word  and  resist  the  Holy  Ghost,  who 
wishes  to  be  efficacious  and  to  work  in  them  through  the  Word." 
Our  Confessions  teach  here  that  God  has  established  this  rule, 
this  law,  in  His  eternal  counsel  once  for  all.  According  to  this 
rule  He  saves  and  condemns  in  time,  according  to  this  rule  He 
has  elected  and  reprobated  in  eternity.  And  in  accordance  with 
this  principle,  say  the  Confessions — therefore  not  according  to  the 
mere  purpose  of  a  hidden  will — are  we  to  understand  that  the  Scrip- 
tures say:  "Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen."  (Muell.  pp.  809- 
811.)  Whilst  according  to  Missouri's  teaching  the  election  of  the 
few  occurs  in  harmony  with  a  mere  purpose  of  the  secret  will  of 
God,  according  to  our  Confessions  it  occurs  in  accordance  with 
the  order  and  the  rule  of  the  gracious  will  revealed  in  the  Gospel: 
He  that  believeth  in  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life.  Missouri's 
interpretation  is  thus  found  flatly  contradicting  the  Confessions. 


Thesis   V.  713 

Martin  Chemnitz,  the  chief  author  of  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
explains  this  parable  in  his  sermon  on  Predestination  in  exactly 
the  same  way  as  we  do.  Chemnitz  does  not  say  in  a  single  syll- 
able that  God  chose  a  number  of  people  in  accordance  with  a 
bare  purpose,  and  resolved  to  bring  these  to  faith  and  to  preserve 
them  therein,  in  preference  to  others ;  but  he  sets  forth,  upon  the 
basis  of  this  parable,  all  the  eternal  decrees  through  which  God 
has  established  the  universal  way  of  salvation,  as  essential  elements 
of  election,  and  then  shows  how,  in  consequence  of  this  universal 
order  of  grace,  a  selection  from  among  the  called  has  come  about. 
But  let  us  hear  Chemnitz  himself.     He  says:  — 

"The  Lord  teaches  and  specifies  in  this  parable  all  that  be- 
longs to  this  article,  and  how  one  point  always  follows  from  the 
other,  namely,  that  divine  predestination  or  election  consists  in 
and  embraces  the  following.  When  God  foresaw  that  the  human 
race  would  fall  from  Him  through  sin  and  would  thereby  sink 
beneath  God's  wrath  and  the  devil's  might  into  eternal  ruin  and 
damnation.  He,  the  loving  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world  was  laid,  in  His  secret,  divine  counsel,  considered,  planned 
and  decreed  how  to  help  the  human  race  out  of  its  ruin  unto  sal- 
vation. In  the  first  place,  His  only  Son  should  take  unto  Him- 
self human  nature,  or,  as  the  parable  says,  the  king  would  arrange 
a  marriage  for  His  Son  and  would  wed  Him  unto  our  human 
nature." 

"Secondly,  this  Son  should  be  made  subject  to  the  law,  should 
be  slain  as  an  offering  for  our  sins,  and  in  this  way  everything 
necessary  to  the  marriage  joy  of  eternal  salvation  should  be  pre- 
pared through  Him." 

"Thirdly;  He  desired  that  not  only  the  flesh  and  blood  that 
His  Son  would  assume  into  the  unity  of  His  person  should  par- 
take of  this  salvation,  but  other  guests  also,  not  from  among  the 
fallen  angels,  but  from  the  human  race  which  was  now  allied  and 
related  to  God's  Son  as  His  bride,  because  of  the  assumed  human 
nature,  and  was  therefore  become  flesh  of  His  flesh  and  bone  of 
His  bone." 

Fourthly,  He  W3uld  have  His  guests  called  to  the  marriage 
by  His  servants ;  that  is,  He  would  reveal  this  His  heavenly  coun- 
sel through  the  Word  to  the  world  and  would  call  men  to  His 
kingdom  by  the  spoken  Word." 

"Fifthly,  He  desired  to  work  efficaciously  upon  men's  hearts 
through  this  call,  enlighten,  convert,  and  save  them." 


714  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctri7ie,  Etc. 

"Sixthly,  those  whom  He  justified  He  would  guard,  protect, 
preserve,  save,  and  glorify.  Just  as  these  particulars  are  also 
summed  up  one  after  the  other,  like  a  golden  chain,  by  St.  Paul 
in  the  beautiful  passage,  Romans  8,  where  he  says:  Whom  He 
did  predestinate,  or  ordain,  them  He  also  called:  and  whom  He 
called,  them  He  also  justified:  and  whom  He  justified,  them  He 
also  glorified." 

"Seventh,  because  God  foresaw  that  the  wicked  human  heart 
would  not  heed,  but  resist,  this  call  and  operation  of  God,  and 
would  not  accept  the  grace  of  God  intended  to  work  upon  man, 
He  decreed  in  His  purpose  that  all  who  despised,  blasphemed, 
and  interfered  with  this  His  call,  or,  when  He  would  operate  in 
their  hearts  by  His  grace,  did  not  heed  the  call,  and  persevered  in 
their  resistance,  should  be  punished  in  time,  and  in  eternity 
rejected  and  damned,  as  this  parable  also  clearly  sets  forth." 

"This  is  the  simple  understanding  and  meaning  of  what 
belongs  to  divine  predestination,  of  what  it  embraces  and  whereon 
it  rests.  And  when  we  speak  or  think  of  God's  predestination  or 
election,  we  must  take  all  these  parts  together,  as  Paul  through- 
out the  whole  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  treats 
and  explains  this  doctrine  part  by  part;  and  if  I  abide  by  this 
explanation  of  the  matter  and  in  this  simplicity,  I  have  as  much 
as  I  need  know  about  it,  and  know  that  I  cannot  go  wrong  or  err. 

Rom.  8,  28-30,  is  the  next  passage  that  we  have  to  consider. 
It  reads  as  follows:  "And  we  know  that  all  things  work  together 
for  good  to  them  that  love  God,  to  them  who  are  called  according 
to  His  purpose.  For  whom  He  did  foreknow.  He  also  did  pre- 
destinate to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son,  that  He  might 
be  the  first-born  among  many  brethren.  Moreover  whom  He 
did  predestinate,  them  He  also  called:  and  whom  He  called, 
them  He  also  justified:  and  whom  He  justified,  them  He 
also  glorified."  The  apostle  desires  in  these,  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding, verses  to  comfort  Christians  in  their  sufiferings  of  the 
present  time  and  to  encourage  them  to  patient  endurance  of  these 
sufferings,  by  showing  them  that,  because  they  are  certain  of  God's 
love  and  therefore  also  of  salvation,  nothing  can  hurt  them,  but 
everything  must  serve  to  their  advantage.  He  declares:  "We 
know  that  all  things  work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love 
God."  Those  that  love  God,  and  of  these  the  apostle  speaks 
here,  are  true  Christians  as  distinguished  from  false  and  hypo- 
critical Christians.     In  the  four  passages  in  which  the  Holy  Scrip- 


Thesis    V.  715 

tures  use  this  expression  (1  Cor.  2,  9;  8,  3;  Eph.  6,  24;  James  1, 
12)  they  employ  it  to  denote  nothing  more  and  nothing  less  than 
true  behevers,  children  of  God  not  only  in  name  but  also  in  fact. 
The  apostle  declares  that  nothing  can  conduce  to  their  hurt,  but 
that  everything  must  prove  for  their  benefit.  And  this  is  not 
something  imaginary,  but  firm,  certain  truth.  We  know,  writes 
the  apostle ;  that  is,  we  true,  believing  Christians  are  certain  of  it. 
But  why  are  we  so  certain?  The  apostle  tells  us,  when  he  pro- 
ceeds with  the  words,  "who  are  the  called  according  to  His  pur- 
pose." True  Christians  are  thus  seen  to  be  called  according  to 
a  purpose;  and  because  this  is  so,  they  know  also  with  certainty 
that  everything  must  help  them  on  unto  salvation.  God's  gracious 
plan  has  been  published  to  them,  and  this  not  in  vain.  They  have 
experienced  the  power  of  this  call;  it  has  opened  their  heart  and 
kindled  faith  in  them.  That  they  are  what  they  are,  truly  believ- 
ing, God-loving  Christians,  they  owe  solely  to  this  divine  call  of 
grace.  Without  the  call  th.ey  would  to-day  belong  to  the  lost 
world.  The  fact,  however,  that  God  calling  through  His  Word 
has  delivered  them  out  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness  and  has  trans- 
planted them  through  faith  into  the  kingdom  of  grace,  is  assur- 
ance to  them  that  God  earnestly  desires  their  eternal  salvation, 
-and  that  everything  must  serve  them  to  this  end.  For  this  call 
was  not  issued  accidentally  to  them,  so  as  to  occasion  the  fear 
that  it  might  accidentally  leave  them  in  the  lurch;  on  the  con- 
trary, their  call  rests  upon  an  express,  divine  purpose,  according 
to  which  God  had  resolved  to  lead  them  to  salvation.  —  Of  what 
kind  is  the  purpose  that  God  has  resolved  upon  and  decreed? 
Missouri  claims  that  this  divine  purpose  does  not  denote  the  uni- 
versal plan  of  salvation,  according  to  which  God  had  decreed  to 
save  men  in  an  appointed  way,  namely,  through  faith  in  Christ; 
but  that  this  word  denotes  the  special,  unconditionally  efifective 
■decree,  framed  concerning  certain  persons  only,  by  virtue  of  which 
God  has  undertaken  to  call  some  rather  than  others,  to  bring 
them  to  faith  and  preserve  them  therein,  and  to  save  them  eter- 
nally; in  short,  purpose  is  the  same  as  "election";  to  be  called 
according  to  the  purpose  means  to  be  called  "on  account  of  elec- 
tion." Missouri  then  makes  the  apostle  say  to  Christians:  We 
Christians  that  love  God  know  that  everything  must  work  to- 
gether for  our  good,  because  we  are  not  called,  as  are  others,  on 
the  basis  of  the  universal  plan  of  grace,  but  according  to  the  pur- 
pose —  on  the  basis  of  election.     That  this  exegesis  is  false  is 


716  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctriyie,  Etc. 

» 

evident  from  the  fact  that  thus  a  twofold  call  is  taught,  one  accord- 
ing to  the  purpose  and  one  apart  from  the  purpose.  Experience 
bears  witness  that  many  are  called  who  either  never  come  to  faith, 
or  who  do  not  abide  in  faith  and  love  and  are  therefore  lost. 
"Many  indeed  are  the  called,  but  few  are  the  elect."  The  many 
evidently  could  not  be  called  on  the  basis  of  election,  simply 
because  they  were  not  elected.  Their  call,  then,  was,  according 
to  the  Missourian  explanation  of  these  words,  no  call  according 
to  the  purpose,  but  apart  from  the  purpose;  their  call  happened 
altogether  accidentally,  and  as  it  happened  accidentally,  so  also 
accidentally  it  came  to  naught.  God  had  not  so  much  as  under- 
taken their  call,  and  therefore  the  call  did  not  attain  its  goal. 
Others,  on  the  other  hand,  were  called  according  to  the  purpose. 
Concerning  these  God  had  resolved  that  they,  only  they,  and  none 
else,  shall  and  must  come  to  faith,  persevere  in  faith,  and  be  saved. 
And  God  "necessarily"  accomplishes  this  resolution.  Of  course 
these  elect  must  also  be  led  to  heaven  according  to  the  plan  of 
salvation;  they  must  therefore  be  called.  But  their  call  must 
attain  its  purpose;  it  can  not  be  despised,  for  it  is  a  call  according 
to  the  purpose.  The  Scriptures  know  nothing  of  such  a  Calvin- 
istic  double  call.  As  the  Scriptures  know  of  but  one  universal 
redemption,  so  do  tliey  know  also  of  but  one  universal  call.  And 
JList  as  certainly  as  God,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  does  noth- 
ing in  time  that  He  has  not  already  in  eternity  resolved  to  do,  so 
certainly  does  the  call  of  every  person  rest  upon  the  purpose. 
Wherever  the  call  is  extended,  it  is  not  accidental,  but  purposed. 
It  is  evident  that  this  divine  purpose  can  not,  as  Missouri  main- 
tains, mean  a  special  counsel  of  election;  this  becomes  clear  when 
we  examine  what  the  Scriptures  say,  in  the  different  passages 
where  the  word  is  used.  We  thus  learn  that  the  purpose  was 
already  formed  in  eternity  (Eph.  3,  11);  that  it  is  not  based  on 
human  merit,  but  alone  on  God's  grace  (2  Tim.  1,  9) ;  that  it  does 
not  depend  on  anything  outside  of  God,  but  alone  on  the  "counsel 
of  His  own  will"  (Eph.  1,  11  J.  Tlie  object  and  goal  of  this  divine 
purpose,  so  the  Scriptures  further  tell  us,  is  the  salvation  of  the 
world.  Upon  this  purpose  rest,  out  of  it  flow,  from  it  proceed, 
the  world-embracing  redemption  (Eph.  3,  8-12),  the  call  (2  Tim. 
1,  9),  the  appointment  to  sonship  and  the  inheritance  (Eph.  1, 
5-11).  According  to  the  Scriptures,  this  purpose  was  "purposed 
in  Christ  Jesus";  that  is,  as  God,  in  His  purpose,  had  appointed 
Christ  to  be  the  only  Savior  of  sinners,  so  also  has  He  determined 


Thesis    V.  717 

to  save  eternally,  not  without  Christ,  not  apart  from  Christ,  but 
alone -in  Christ,  i.  e.  those  only  who  are  in  Christ,  who  believe  in 
Him.  Therefore  this  purpose  is  called  Rom.  9,  11,  "the  purpose 
according  to  election",  i.  e.  a  purpose  so  framed,  that  in  it  a  choice 
of  those  to  be  saved  out  of  the  mass  of  mankind  is  made.  For 
God  has  not  resolved  to  save  all  absolutely,  but  only  those  who 
believe  in  Christ.  What,  now,  is  this  purpose  of  which  the  apostle 
speaks  when  he  says:  "The  called  according  to  His  purpose"? 
Surely,  not  a  new  counsel,  differing  from  the  universal  counsel  of 
grace,  so  that  God,  v/ithout  reference  to  faith  or  unbelief,  out  of 
the  mere  free  pleasure  of  His  secret  will  chose  for  Himself  a 
certain  number  of  men,  and  resolved  to  call  these  in  preference 
to  others,  to  bring  them  to  faith  and  to  preserve  them  therein ;  but 
it  is  the  divine  decree  formed  in  eternity,  not  based  on  human 
merit,  but  on  God's  free  grace,  as  regards  its  final  realization  bound 
by  God  Himself  to  faith  as  a  condition:  and  upon  this  decree  rest 
the  universal  redemption,  tITe  universal  call,  conversion,  justifica- 
tion and  salvation  of  sinners.  It  is,  as  our  Confessions  say,  the 
purpose,  counsel,  will  and  appointment  of  God,  pertaining  to  our 
redemption,  call,  justification  and  salvation.  It  is  the  eternal 
decree  in  which  God  —  as  the  Confessions  elsewhere  say  —  has 
resolved  "that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowl- 
edge His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  Him"  (Epitome  XI,  12, 
p.  556).  It  is  the  purpose  of  which  Christ  says :  "And  this  is  the 
will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and 
believeth  on  Him,  may  have  everlasting  life:  and  I  will  raise  him 
up  at  the  last  day"  (John  6,  40).  Because  God  has  made  this 
decree  of  salvation  in  eternity.  He  -causes  men  to  be  called  ef^ca- 
ciously  in  time,  thus  overcoming  their  hearts,  so  that  they  receive 
His  Word  and  assent  thereto.  Upon  His  purpose  rests  the  call 
And  as  certainly  as  this  gracious  purpose  of  God  is  executed  in 
the  call  of  true  Christians,  and  as  certainly  as  God  desires  to  lead 
them  to  a  blessed  end,  so  certaiidy  their  sufferings  can  not  tend  to 
their  hurt.  If  purpose  did  not  here  mean  the  universal  counsel  of 
salvation  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  if  it  meant,  as  Missouri  teaches, 
a  hidden,  essentially  different  counsel,  the  call  would  offer  the 
Christian  no  comfort.  He  could  then  never  be  certain  that  every- 
thing must  serve  for  his  advantage.  For  he  would  continually 
be  subject  to  the  fear:  What  if  you  are  not  called  according  to 
the  purpose?  —  Before  he  could  have  any  real  comfort,  he  would 
have  to  be  absolutelv  sure  that  he  is  called  according  to  the  hid- 


718  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctri7ie,  Etc. 

den  purpose  that  hovers  over  only  a  few  persons.  But  where 
shall  he  find  this  certainty?  —  However  much  Missouri  prides 
itself  on  assuring  Christians  of  their  salvation  by  this  doctrine  of 
election,  it  really  robs  them  of  all  comfort.  In  the  following  verse 
the  apostle  shows  in  how  far  those  who  are  the  called  according  to 
the  purpose  are  the  persons  for  whom  all  things  must  work 
together  for  good.  He  writes:  "For  whom  He  did  foreknow, 
He  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son, 
that  He  might  be  the  first-born  among  many  brethren."  He  here 
calls  attention  to  the  divine  order  and  appointment  contained  ia 
the  universal  decree  of  salvation,  to  lead  to  glory  witli  certamty  all 
those  that  love  God.  But  that  no  one  might  entertain  the  thought,, 
that  this  decree  was  not  executed  according  to  .the  revealed  plan, 
of  grace,  but  according  to  the  mere  pleasure  of  a  secret  will,  the 
apostle  makes  this  appointment  to  be  dependent  on  divine  fore- 
sight, for  he  declares  that  God  has  appointed  those  to  glory 
"whom  He  did  foreknow."  "Whom  He  did  foreknow"  —  these 
words  are  of  the  highest  importance  in  the  present  controversy. 
What  do  they  mean?  Missouri  claims:  to  love,  elect,  predesti- 
nate. Thus  we  read,  e.  g.  in  the  Western  District  Minutes  of 
1.S79:  We  are  to  understand  by  this  expression  nothing  else  than: 
He  loves  them.  He  has  chosen  them,  elected,  received  them  as  His 
own  and  recognizes  them  as  His  loved  ones  (compare  p.  28  and 
"L.  and  W.",  188(1). 

That  "foreknow"  can  not  here  mean  "elect"  is  shown  first  by 
the  context.  This  passage  has  often  and  rightly  been  likened  to 
a  chain.  As  in  a  chain  one  ring  is  attached  to  the  next,  yet  each 
is  a  link  by  itself,  so  with  respect  to  the  individual  sentences  of 
this  passage:  one  member  is  coupled  to  the  next:  glorification, 
to  justification,  justification  to  calling,  calling  to  predestination, 
predestination  to  foreknowledge.  Everything  is  finally  based  on 
the  eternal  divine  counsel  of  salvation.  That  is  the  foundation 
which  supports  everything.  From  this  point  the  process  is  by  way 
of  foreknowledge  to  predestination  in  eternity,  and  by  way  of 
calHng  to  justification  and  salvation  in  time.  A  different  act  of 
God  is  denoted  by  each  member  of  the  sentence.  As  is  evidently 
the  case  in  verse  30,  where  the  different  stages  of  the  way  of  salva- 
tion —  calling,  justifying,  glorifying  —  are  mentioned,  so  also- 
in  verse  29,  where  the  eternal  acts  of  God  —  foreknowledge  and 
predestination  —  are  described.  For,  just  as  there  the  apostle 
makes  glorification  dependent  on  justification  and  justification 


Thesis    V.  719 

on  calling-,  so  here  he  makes  predestination  dependent  on  fore- 
knowledge. As  little  as  calling,  justification  and  glorification  are 
one  and  the  same  thing,  so  little  are  foreknowledge  and  predestina- 
tion one  and  the  same.  The  Missourian  exegesis,  however,  makes 
the  apostle  say  one  and  the  same  thing  in  both  words.  According 
to  Missouri  the  words:  call,  justify,  glorify,  form  by  themselves 
one  chain  which  is  forged  to  the  rock  of  an  absolute  predestina- 
tion. This  rock  is  described  by  the  three  words:  purpose,  fore- 
knowledge, predestination.  But  not  only  does  this  exegesis  de- 
stroy the  connection  of  the  discourse,  it  also  ascribes  to  the  apostle 
trifling,  insipid  words.  Stop  a  moment  and  consider:  from  the 
Missourian  standpoint  "according  to  the  purpose"  means  "on 
the  basis  of  election",  "foreknow"  means  "elect",  and  to  predesti- 
nate to  glory  means  again  to  elect.  The  apostle  would  then  make 
this  revelation  to  the  Christians  at  Rome:  You  are  called  accord- 
ing to  election,  for  whom  He  has  elected,  them  He  has  elected! 
How?  Has  Paul  really  written  such  meaningless  words?  — 
Missouri  herself  has  felt  with  what  difficulties  this  interpretation 
is  beset.  In  order  to  give  the  thing  a  better  look,  the  declaration 
was  afterwards  made  that  foreknow  means:  a  divine  act  before 
the  dawn  of  time,  by  virtue  of  which  God  already  in  eternity 
accepted  certain  persons  as  ETis  own,  devoted  them  to  Himself, 
made  them  His  own,  placed  them  in  communion  with  Himself 
("L.  u.  W.",  1880,  pp.  200  sqq.).  These  swelling  words  may  have 
made  the  matter  as  clear  as  daylight  for  some  and  may  have 
completely  satisfied  them ;  but  in  fact  they  do  not  better  the  mat- 
ter, they  only  veil  it  a  little  more.  The  gist  of  this  statement  too 
is:  foreknow  means  elect.  For  when  God  adopts  according  to 
His  mere  pleasure,  one  sinner  in  preference  to  another.  He  thereby 
predestinates  him  to  glory,  elects  him  to  salvation.  This  latest 
Missourian  interpretation  can  have  no  signification  but  this: 
Whom  God  elected,  He  elected.  As  certainly  as  the  holy  apostle 
does  not  utter  such  nonsense,  so  certainly  also  foreknow,  in  the 
light  of  the  context,  can  not  mean  elect.  In  the  first  place  the 
sense  of  foreknow  (proginoskein)  does  not  allow  of  such  an  inter- 
pretation. Nowhere  do  the  Holy  Scriptures  use  foreknow  in 
this  sense.  This  meaning  of  foreknow  has  simply  been  invented, 
invented  by  Calvin,  adopted  by  Hofmann,  rehashed  by  P.  Stoeck- 
hardt.  In  the  entire  Bible  proginoskein  means  nothing  else  than 
to  foreknow,  to  know  beforehand,  to  recognize  beforehand.  That 
this  is  at  least  the  fundamental  meaning  of  the  word  even  our 


720  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

opponents  must  concede.  When  Paul  says:  "The  Lord  knoweth 
them  that  are  His"  (2  Tim.  2,  19),  that  does  not  mean:  He  makes 
them  His  own,  loves  them  as  His  own,  but:  He  knows  which  are 
His.  When  the  same  apostle  again  says,  Rom.  11,  2:  "God  hath 
not  cast  away  His  people  which  He  foreknew",  that  does  not 
mean:  His  people  that  He  elected,  but:  His  people  that  He  knew 
beforehand,  namely  as  His  people.  The  sense  of  the  passage  is: 
Although  hardening  has  befallen  the  greater  part  of  Israel,  God 
has  not  on  that  account  cast  away  His  people;  for  not  all  the 
descendants  of  Abraham  are  God's  people,  but  only  those  that 
have  the  faith  of  Abraham.  And  this  His  foreknown  people  God 
hath  not  cast  off.  When  it  is  said  (1  Pet.  1,  18-20):  "Ye  were 
redeemed  ...  .  with  precious  blood,  as  of  a  lamb  without 
blemish  and  without  spot,  even  the  blood  of  Christ:  Who  was 
foreknown  indeed  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  but  was 
manifested  at  the  end  of  the  times  for  your  sake",  —  to  foreknow 
here  does  not  mean  to  appoint  beforehand,  but  to  know  before- 
hand. The  apostle  would  say :  Christ  has  indeed  been  revealed  in 
the  last  times  as  the  innocent,  spotless  lamb  of  God,  slain  for  our 
sins.  But  God  has  foreknown  and  recognized  this  from  eternity. 
True,  Christ  has  certainly  been  foreordained  by  God  to  be  the 
atonement  for  our  sins ;  however,  that  is  not  what  the  apostle  says 
here,  but,  that  God  knew  Him  from  eternity  to  be  such  an  otter- 
ing. In  short:  Nowhere  in  the  Scriptures  is  foreknow  to  be  con- 
founded with  foreordain,  elect,  join  in  fellowship  with  one's  self: 
wherever  the  Holy  Scriptures  use  this  word,  it  retains  its  original 
meaning:  know,  recognize,  beforehand.  No  matter  if  this  fore- 
knowing as  well  as  knowing  be  followed  by  love,  or  even  include 
this  in  itself,  it  still  remains  a  knowing,  and  a  knowing  is  what 
the  Scriptures  understand  thereby.  Our  passage  therefore 
remains  unchanged:  whom  He  foreknew;  and  not:  whom  He 
predestinated.  • —  It  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  Lutheran  exe- 
gesis that  we  dare  not  depart  from  the  native  sense  of  words 
unless  compelled  to  do  so,  especially  not  in  passages  that  form  the 
foundation  of  an  article  of  faith.  Therefore  our  Church  has  so 
severely  reproved  the  Reformed  for  having  forsaken  the  letter 
in  the  words  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper.  Ag  in  the  words 
concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  so  here  also  we  have  a  passage  that 
is  the  seat  of  an  article  of  faith.  Nevertheless,  Missouri  does  not 
scruple  to  infuse  into  these  words  a  sense  that  they  do  not  have 
and  can  not  have,  whether  we  consider  the  words  themselves  or 


Thesis    V.  721 

the  connection  in  which  they  occur.  Is  that  less  blameworthy 
than  the  perversions  of  the  words  of  the  Lord's  Supper  on  the 
part  of  the  Reformed?  In  order  to  justify  this  perversion  of  the 
word  "know",  Matt.  11,  27  is  appealed  to:  "And  no  man  knoweth 
the  Son,  but  the  Father;  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father^ 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  Him."' 
Here,  say  our  opponents,  to  know  must  mean  "to  love";  but 
not  even  here  can  this  be  the  meaning.  The  words:  "to  whom- 
soever the  Son  will  reveal  Him",  prevent  such  an  explanation; 
for,  reveal  is  to  teach.  If  there  were  any  passage  where  "know" 
meant  merely  "love",  it  would  be  this  one;  but  here  knowing  is 
not  excluded.  It  is  therefore  impossible  that  in  the  words,  "Whom 
He  did  foreknow",  knowing  or  recognizing,  the  act  wBereby  one 
person  is  seen  to  dififer  from  another,  should  be  excluded. 

If  we  ask:  What  has  God  foreknown  these  people  to  be, 
whom  He  has  predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  His 
Son?  the  answer,  according  to  the  preceding  verse  can  only  be: 
He  has  recognized  them  as  true  believing  children  of  God.  And 
that  God,  also  with  regard  to  faith,  looks  into  the  future,  is  proved 
by  John  17,  20:  "Neither  pray  I  Tor  these  alone,  but  for  them  also 
which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word."  The  same  thing 
is  proved  by  1  Tim.  1,  16:  "Howbeit  for  this  cause  I  obtained 
mercy,  that  in  the  first  Jesus  Christ  might  shew  forth  all  long- 
sufTering,  for  a  pattern  to  them  which  should  hereafter  believe  on 
Him  to  life  everlasting."  "Should"  is  here  used,  if  we  examine 
the  original,  in  the  sense  of  "would."  ....  The  apostle  would 
say :  I  am  become  a  pattern  unto  them  that  will  hereafter  believe 
in  Him.  As  God,  in  the  light  of  these  passages,  has  looked  upon 
future  believers,  even  so  has  He  also  in  the  appointment  of  certain 
persons  to  salvation  looked  upon  their  future  faith.  When  the 
holy  apostle  says:  "Whom  He  did  foreknow.  He  also  did  predes- 
tinate to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son",  he  would  say: 
Whom  God  has  foreknown  or  recognized  as  such,  who  in  conse- 
quence of  the  execution  of  His  universal  plan  of  salvation  would 
believe  in  Christ,  these  He  has  also  appointed  to  be  conformed  to 
the  image  of  His  Son,  both  here  in  suffering  and  hereafter  in 
glory.  — 

It  is  clear  from  the  whole  eighth  chapter  of  Romans  that  this 
is  the  meaning  of  the  passage.  The  apostle,  before  reaching  this 
passage  in  the  eighth  chapter,  draws  a  sharp  line,  and  places 
some  on  the  one  side  and  others  on  the  other  side  of  the  line. 


722  A  Testimony  Agai7ist  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

Verse  1:  "There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them 
which  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after 
the  Spirit."  The  antithesis  to  this  appears  in  verses  7,  8,  and  13: 
"Because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God:  for  it  is  not  sub- 
ject to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  "Be.  So  then  they  that 
are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God.  For  if^ye  live  after  the  flesh, 
ye  shall  die."  The  meaning  of  the  holy  apostle  is  briefly  this: 
In  those  that  are  in  Christ  there  is  nothing  damnable:  in  those 
that  are  outside  of  Christ  everything  is  damnable.  Whether  or 
not  one  is  in  Christ  is  determined  by  whether  he  walks  after  the 
Spirit  or  after  the  flesh.  But  those  that  wal^  after  the  flesh  are 
outside  of  Christ.  —  Verse  14:  "For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God."  The  antithesis,  accord- 
ing to  the  foregoing,  is:  Those  that  are  not  led  by  the  Spirit  of 
God  are  not  God's  children.  —  Verse  17:  "And  if  children,  then 
heirs;  heirs  of  God,  and  joint-heirs  with  Christ;  if  so  be  that 
we  suffer  with  Him,  that  we  may  be  also  glorified  together." 
The  antithesis  is:  If  we  are  not  children,  or  permit  ourselves  to  be 
alienated  by  suffering,  we  shall  not  become  heirs  of  God  and  joint- 
heirs  with  Christ,  and  we  shall  not  be  glorified.  —  Verse  28:  "And 
we  know  that  all  things  work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love 
God."  The  antithesis :  To  them  that  do  not  love  God,  all  things 
work  together  for  ruin.  What  a  pressing  admonition  for  Chris- 
tians lies  in  this  passage,  that  they  may  strive  to  be  in  Christ 
through  faith,  may  love  God,  and  follow  the  leading  and  prompt- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit!  And  now  should  the  apostle  say,  verse  29 : 
Oh,  God  has  from  eternity  elected  and  predestinated  you  to  the 
infallible  attainment  of  salvation,  without  even  inquiring  whether 
you  would  be  in  Christ  through  faith?  !  No;  he  can  only  mean: 
Those,  of  whom  He  in  His  omniscience  foresaw  that  they,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  execution  of  His  universal  plan  or  purpose  of  sal- 
vation would  believe  in  Christ,  He  has  predestined  to  be  con- 
formed to  the  image  of  His  Son.  But  these  are  the  very  ones 
who,  according  to  the  preceding  verse,  love  God.  Therefore  it 
is  said  in  1  Cor.  8,  3 :  "But  if  any  man  love  God,  the  same  is  known 
of  Him."  And,  as  though  the  apostle  would  completely  antici- 
pate the  idea,  that  God  had  dealt  arbitrarily  in  His  appointment  to 
glorification,  Ke  presents  the  stages  of  the  execution  in  time  of 
the  eternal  decree,  saying,  verse  30:  "Moreover  whom  He  did 
predestinate,  them  He  also  called."  (These  have  not  been  called 
in  vain.     For,  although  the  call  can  be  despised  and  actually  is 


Thesis    V.  723 

despised  by  the  greater  part  of  mankind,  yet  this  point  is  not  here 
considered  since  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  predestinated,  of  those 
concerning  whom  God  foreknew  that  they  would  come  to  faith, 
that  they  would  not  maliciously  and  stubbornly  resist  the  call  of 
the  Word.)  "\And  whom  He  called"  (and  who  thereby  became 
truly  believing  Christians,  verse  28.),  "them  He  also  justified" 
(God  justifies  believers  only,  therefore  reference  is  had  here  to  the 
called  who  have  become  believing  through  tITe  Word.)  "And 
whom  He  justified,  them  He  also  glorified."  (Glorification,  in 
fact,  is  still  in  the  future;  has,  however,  together  with  justification, 
as  good  as  taken  place.  God  leads  His  own,  as  far  as  He  is  con- 
cerned, from  stage  to  stage.)  Thus  the  execution  in  time  of  the 
eternal  decree  proceeds,  according  to  the  apostle's  words,  through 
the  faith-creating  call  to  justification,  and  through  justification  to 
glorification.  God  carries  out  His  eternal  decree  in  time  by  work- 
ing faith  through  the  call,  justifying  believers,  and  saving  and 
glorifying  the  justified.  In  the  light  of  the  temporal  execution 
of  the. decree  the  apostle  shows  us  what  divine  election  is.  For 
the  decree  and  the  execution  must  correspond  perfectly.  In  the 
same  manner,  in  the  same  order  in  which  God  now  in  time  actually 
saves  men,  in  that  order  He  has  also  appointed  them  to  salvation. 
As,  in  time,  in  justification  and  salvation  faith  is  presupposed,  so 
the  eternal  appointment  presupposed  faith.  As  God  justifies  and 
saves  only  those  who  are  already  believers,  so  He  appointed  unto 
salvation  such  only  as  were  already  (according  to  His  foreknowl- 
edge) believers.  In  directing  our  attention  to  the  execution  of 
the  decree,  the  apostle  says  that  election  did  not  take  place  accord- 
ing to  a  hidden  free  purpose,  but  according  to  the  rule  followed 
out  in  the  plan  of  salvation.  Whoever  is  on  the  way  to  salva- 
tion, being  called  and  justified,  can  and  should  draw  the  com- 
forting assurance  for  himself,  that  he  belongs  to  the  elect;  only, 
he  must  sufifer  with  Christ  (verse  17),  and  must  kill  the  works 
of  the  flesh  (verse  13);  and  for  this  conflict  God  will 
furnish  him  with  the  necessary  strength,  as  St  Paul  shows 
farther  on  in  this  chapter.  • — ■  This  passage,  Rom.  8,  28-30, 
does  not  aflford  the  slightest  support  for  teaching  the  election  of 
certain  individuals,  according  to  a  free  purpose,  unto  the  call  and 
unto  faith;  it  rather  teaches  most  unequivocally  that  God,  in  the 
predestination  of  certain  persons  unto  salvation  in  preference  to 
others,  not  only  had  regard  to  Christ's  merit  in  so  far  as  it  would 
be  acquired  for  us,  but  also  as  to  whether  that  merit  would  be 


724  A   Testimony  Agaiyist  the  False  Doctriiie,  Etc. 

grasped  and  accepted  tHrough  faith,  in  short:  this  passage  teaches 
that  God  has  elected  in  view  of  faith. 

This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  the  ninth,  tenth  and 
eleventh  chapters  of  Romans.  Our  opponents  indeed  try  to 
explain  Rom.  9,  18:  '^Therefore  hath  He  mercy  on  whom  He  will 
have  mercy,  and  whom  He  \nW.  He  hardeneth",  as  though  God,  in 
the  bestowal  or  the  denial  of  His  grace,  did  not  act  according  to 
the  revealed  rule:  '^e  that  believeth  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned",  but  according  to  pure  arbitrari- 
ness. This,  however,  is  a  shameful  perversion  of  the  words.  For, 
throughout  these  three  chapters,  treating  as  they  do  of  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  Jews  as  God's  people,  the  thought  expressed  in  Rom. 
9,  32,  extends  like  a  scarlet  thread:  "Because  they  sought  it  not 
by  faith,  but  as  it  were  by  the  works  oF  the  law."  That  it  is  still 
God's  gracious  will  to  save  the  Jews  also,  is  proved  by  Rom.  10, 
12.  13:  "For  there  is  no  difference  between  the  Jew  and  the 
Greek:  for  the  same  Lord  over  all  is  rich  unto  all  that  call  upon 
Him.  For  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall 
be  saved."  It  is  true  that  God  has  mercy  upon  whom  He  will 
have  mercy,  and  hardens  whom  He  will,  but  He  has  determined 
in  His  counsel  "that  He  will  justify  and  save  all  those  who, 
through  true  faith,  receive  Christ;  He  has  also  determined  in  His 
counsel  that  He  will  harden,  reprobate  and  condemn  those  who 
are  called  through  the  Word,  if  they  reject  the  Word,  and  resist 
the  Holy  Ghost,  who  wishes  to  be  efficacious  and  to  work  in  them 
through  the  Word.  And  for  this  reason  'many  are  called,  but 
few  are  chosen.' "  (Form.  Cone,  Mueller,  p.  713.)  The  rule 
according  to  which  God  has  mercy  or  hardens  is  plainly  and  clearly 
revealed. 

A  third  passage,  of  primary  importance  in  showing  that  elec- 
tion took  place  on  account  of  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  appre- 
hended in  faith,  is  Eph.  1,  3-G:  "Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Who  hath  blessed  us  with  all  spiritual  bless- 
ings in  heavenly  places  in  Christ:  according  as  He  hath  chosen 
us  in  Him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we  should  be 
holy  and  without  blame  before  Him  in  love:  having  predestinated 
us  unto  the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ  to  Himself, 
according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  His  will,  to  the  praise  of  the 
glory  of  His  grace,  wherein  He  hath  made  us  accepted  in  the 
beloved."  The  apostle  begins  with  praise  to  God  for  having 
blessed  us  with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly  places.     God 


Thesis    V.  725 

has  blessed  us,  says  the  apostle;  whom  does  he  mean  by  the  word 
"us"?  He  means,  first  of  all,  himself  and  those  to  whom  he  writes. 
But  he  was  a  believing  Christian,  and  so  were  those  to  whom  he 
addressed  himself.  He  calls  them  "saints''  and  "faithful  in  Christ 
Jesus."  The  apostle  includes  in  the  word  "us"  believing  Chris- 
tians in  general.  These  are  blessed  by  God.  And  for  this  the 
apostle  praises  God. 

Wherewith  has  God  blessed  them?  "With  all  spiritual  bless- 
ings in  heavenly  places",  answers  the  apostle.  He  means  all  the 
gifts  that  Christ  has  acquired,  as  forgiveness  of  sins,  righteousness, 
freedom  from  death  and  the  devil,  sonship,  the  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  peace  of  God,  inheritance  of  eternal  life,  etc. 

If  we  ask  further:  How  have  the  Christians  become  partakers 
of  these  spiritual  blessings?  the  apostle  answers,  "in  Christ."  What 
does  "in  Christ"  mean?  Does  it  mean:  for  Jesus  Christ's  sake, 
so  that  the  idea  would  be  simply  this  —  Christ  has  acquired  these 
blessings  and  made  it  possible  for  God  to  bless  us?  Missouri 
claims  this  to  be  the  meaning.  But  this  is  not  the  meaning.  Had 
the  apostle  wanted  to  say  merely  this,  he  would  have  written  "for 
Christ's  sake",  and  not  "in  Christ."  "In  Christ"  means  more  than 
for  Christ's  sake.  Wherever  these  words  occur  in  Holy  Scrip- 
ture they  mean:  in  communion  with  Christ.  Commvmion  with 
Christ,  however,  is  impossible  except  through  faith.  "In  Christ" 
means  then:  to  stand  in  believing  fellowship  with  Clirist.  That 
this  is  correct  is  shovv^n  by  the  following  passages:  Eph.  2,  13: 
"But  now  in  Christ  Jesus  ye  who  sometimes  were  far  off  are  made 
nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ."  Likewise  3,  21.  Also  Rom.  8,  1: 
"There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them  which  are  in 
Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit." 
When  now  the  apostle  says:  "He  has  blessed  us  in  Christ",  his 
meaning  is:  God  has  given  His  only  begotten  and  beloved  Son 
\o  the  world,  and  in  Him  has  prepared  for  the  world  all  that  it 
needs.  Forgiveness,  righteousness,  hfe  and  salvation  are  i  n 
Christ,  and  in  Him  alone.  He  that  would  have  and  enjoy  these 
spiritual  blessings  must  be  in  Christ.  Outside  of  Him  there  is 
no  forgiveness,  but  only  a  curse,  no  life,  but  only  death,  no  salva- 
tion, but  only  hell.  Only  in  Him,  only  in  believing  fellowship  with 
Him,  is  the  blessing  to  be  had  and  enjoyed.  That  men  may  par- 
take of  this  blessing,  God  gives  His  Word  and  Sacraments  and 
operates  through  these  by  His  Holy  Spirit,  in  order  to  lead  the 
hearts  of  men  to  true  repentance  and  faith.     All  men  who  use 


726  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

the  means  of  grace  and  do'  not  wilfully  resist  are  brought  to  faith, 
are  united  by  faith  with  Christ  and  as  believers  in  Christ  have  and 
enjoy  also  the  spiritual  blessing  in  heavenly  places.  In  Christ, 
then,  in  believing  fellowship  with  Him  or,  what  is  the  same,  for 
the  sake  of  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  embraced  in  faith,  have  we 
become  partakers  of  the  spiritual  blessing  in  heavenly  places. 

When  the  apostle  continues  in  the  following  verse:  "Accord- 
ing as  He  hath  chosen  us  in  Him  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world",  he  establishes  a  comparison  between  God's  blessing  in 
time  and  election  in  eternity,  and  says:  God  has  blessed  us  in  the 
same  way  in  which  He  has  elected  us.  The  apostle  presents  tfie 
act  of  blessing  in  time  and  the  act  of  election  in  eternity  as  acts 
corresponding  perfectly.  If  one  would  rightly  understand  eternal 
election,  let  him  consider  how  God  in  time  blesses  men  with 
spiritual  and  heavenly  gifts.  The  same  order  that  God  followed 
now,  He  also  followed  in  eternity  in  the  matter  of  election.  The 
rule  and  the  order,  according  to  which  God  separates  His  people 
in  time  from  the  world  and  receives  them  as  His  children  and 
heirs  of  everlasting  life,  are  the  same  order  and  rule  according  to 
which  in  eternity  in  His  divine  counsel  He  separated  them  from 
the  world  and  predestinated  them  to  be  His  children  and  heirs  of 
everlasting  life.  Here  in  time  we  are  blessed  in  Christ:  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world  election  took  place  in  the  same  way  — 
in  Christ.  The  apostle  says:  "According  as  He  hath  chosen  us 
in  Him."  In  Christ,  not  into  Christ,  not  for  Christ's  sake,  but  in 
Christ.  All  spiritual  blessing  in  heavenly  places  is  locked  up  in 
Christ:  the  eternal  elecLion  of  the  Father  is  locked  up  in  Christ. 
Christ  is,  as  it  were,  the  compass  within  which  election  took  place. 
Therefore  the  Church  sings:  "O  God,  in  Thy  dear  Son  have  I 
been  chosen  from  eternity",  and,  "In  Thy  deep  wounds  let  me  dis- 
cover my  election."  Here  the  Lutheran  and  the  Calvinistic  doc- 
trines of  election  separate.  The  Lutheran  doctrine  of  election 
lives,  moves,  and  has  its  being  in  the  expression  "in  Christ."  This 
"in  Christ"  is  her  heartbeat.  The  position  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
is  in  complete  agreement  with  the  revealed  counsel  of  grace.  The 
Calvinistic  doctrine  starts  from  the  free  purpose  of  a  hidden  will. 
According  to  this  position  the  election  of  those  who  are  to  be 
saved  takes  place  in  a  hidden  abyss.  The  mere  pleasure  of  God 
decides  who  are  to  be  saved  and  who  are  not.  Christ  is  thus 
abased  until  He  becomes  either  the  mere  means  of  the  execution 
of  this  purpose,  as  the  most  positive  Calvinists  declare,  or  at  least. 


Thesis    V.  •  727 

as  in  the  case  of  Missouri,  Christ  is  retained  as  the  foundation  of 
election  in  so  far  as  "by  His  merit  He  made  it  possible  for  God  to 
elect  sinful  men."  With  respect  to  the  selection  of  individuals, 
however,  Christ's  merit  has  properly  nothing  to  do.  There  the 
mere  pleasure  of  God  decides.  The  election  itself  does  not  take 
place  in  Christ.  The  apostle  teaches  quite  differently  here.  He 
says:  Just  as  in  time  God  blesses  us  in  Christ,  even  so  has  He 
in  eternity  elected  in  Christ.  If  faith  can  be  excluded  from  being 
considered  in  connection  with  the  blessing  here  in  time,  then  also 
can  it  be  disregarded  in  contemplating  eternal  election.  But  if 
faith  can  not  be  excluded  in  the  former  case,  then  it  can  not  be 
overlooked  in  the  latter,  for  the  apostle  joins  both  together  by  the 
words  "according  as."  But  now  faith  can  not  be  shut  out  when 
we  speak  of  the  blessing  in  time,  therefore  it  is  not  to  be  shut  out 
when  we  speak  of  the  election  in  eternity.  As  only  he  can  share 
the  blessing  in  time  who  is  in  Christ,  who  stands  in  believing  fel- 
lowship with  Christ,  so  he  only  could  be  elected  whom  God  saw  in 
Christ,  in  believing  fellowship  with  Christ.  He  who  was  outside 
of  Christ  was  also  outside  of  the  circle  of  election  within  which 
the  choice  was  made,  and  therefore  could  not  be  chosen.  As  in 
time  God  is  governed  by  the  plan  of  salvation  in  the  actual  accept- 
ance unto  sonship  and  heirship,  so  also  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world  in  the  predestination  unto  sonship  and  heirship  He  was 
governed  by  the  plan  of  salvation.  As  in  time  God  does  not 
impute  Christ's  righteousness  nor  receive  unto  sonship  and  heir- 
ship when  Christ's  merit  is  not  apprehended  by  faith,  so  also  in 
eternity  has  He  not  appointed  unto  the  certain  attainment  of 
Christ's  righteousness  and  eternal  life  when  He  did  not  foresee 
faith  in  Christ.  He  has  elected  only  whom  God,  according  to  His 
omniscience,  saw  in  Christ  through  faith;  those  whom  He  did  not 
see  in  Christ,  He  did  not  and  could  not  elect.  For  God,  "in  His 
eternal  divine  counsel  determined  that  He  would  save  no  one 
except  those  who  acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  beUeve 
on  Him"  (Cone.  Form.  Epitome,  No.  12).  True,  the  elect  were 
not,  at  the  time  of  their  election,  actually  in  Christ,  save  in  God's 
foreknowledge;  they  were  not  even  in  existence.  God,  there- 
fore, if  He  was  to  elect  at  all,  had  to  look  into  the  future.  Because 
He  is  the  omniscient  God,  in  whose  sight  "everything  is  naked 
and  open".  He  saw  from  all  eternity  all  the  millions  that  would 
ever  live  and  die.  And  He  saw  them  either  in  Adam  or  in  Christ. 
But  in  Adam  there  is  nothing  save  death  and  ruin;  in  Christ  alone 


728  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

are  redemption,  Iffe,  and  eternal  happiness  (Rom.  5,  14-19). 
Therefore  God  could  net  have  beheld  those  whom  He  elected,  as 
being  in  Adam,  but  rather  as  being  in  Christ,  as  believers.  Our 
opponents,  in  their  doctrine  of  election,  separate  faith  from  God's 
grace  and  Christ's  merit  and  put  it  on  the  same  plane  with  works. 
But  faith,  as  repeatedly  remarked,  is  not  here  considered  as  a 
work  or  virtue,  but  as  the  hand  through  which  God's  grace  and 
Christ's  merit  are  accepted.  Faith,  grace,  Christ  always  belong 
together.  Therefore  our  Confessions  say:  "As  often,  therefore, 
as  mercy  is  spoken  of,  faith  in  the  promise  must  be  added,  and 
this  faith  makes  a  distinction  between  those  by  whom  salvation 
is  attained  and  those  by  whom  it  is  not  attained.  Faith  makes 
the  distinction  between  the  worthy  and  the  unworthy,  because 
eternal  life  has  been  promised  to  the  justified;  and  faith  justifies." 
(Apology,  Mueller,  p.  ]44.) 

From  the  following  verses  also,  in  which  the  apostle  declares 
whereunto  God  has  elected  us,  it  appears  that  God,  when  He 
elected,  sought  for  faith.  He  says  first  of  all,  that  God  has  chosen 
us  "that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before  Him  in  love." 
Accordingly,  the  purpose  and  goal  of  election  is  a  holy,  God-pleas- 
ing life.  Since,  however,  a  holy  life  in  love  is  not  possible  where 
faith  does  not  dwell  in  the  heart,  —  for  "whatsoever  is  not  of  faith 
is  sin"  —  it  follows  that  those  who  were  chosen  by  God  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world  that  they  should  be  holy  in  love,  were 
already  before  the  all-seeing  eye  of  God  in  Christ,  were  already 
in  faith,  before  they  were  chosen;  for  as  unbelievers  they  could 
never  have  been  appointed  unto  holiness  in  love.  As  in  time  no 
one  is  brought  to  lead  a  holy  life  in  love  except  he  have  first 
believed,  so  God  in  eternity  resolved  to  lead  no  one  unto  such  a 
holy  life  of  whom  He  did  not  see  that  he  would  believe  in  Christ. 

The  second  thing  that  the  apostle  names  as  the  object  and 
goal  of  election  is  sonship.  "Having  predestinated  us  unto  the 
adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ  to  Himself."  What  do  these 
words  mean?  Sonship  means  in  the  Holy  Scriptures:  Adoption 
and  the  relation  thus  established  between  believers  and  God. 
Through  adoption  believing  Christians  have  been  delivered  from 
the  state  of  wrath  and  the  curse,  to  which  they  belong  by  nature, 
and  transplanted  into  a  state  of  grace;  and  in  this  state,  for  the 
sake  of  Christ's  righteousness  embraced  in  faith,  they  have  ob- 
tained the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  and  the  promise  of  the  eternal 
inheritance,  and  as  an  earnest  and  pledge  of  this  there  has  been 


Thesis    V.  729 

given  them  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  whom  they,  being  free  from 
all  fear  of  God  as  the  strict  Judge,  cry  out:  "Abba,  Father." 
This  childlike  relation  in  which  Christians  live  with  God  is 
intended  in  our  passage,  when  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  adoption 
of  children.  He  would  say  this:  By  electing  us  in  Christ,  God 
has  determined  to  bring  us  through  Christ  into  such  a  relation 
with  Himself,  as  that  which  exists  between  dear  children  and  their 
loving  father.  • —  In  this  "predestinated  unto  adoption"  Missouri 
tries  to  find  its  election  unto  faith.  "In  the  idea  of  adoption",  says 
"Lehre  und  Wehre",  "the  idea  of  faith  is  includ'ed.  It  is  therefore 
altogether  scriptural  to  say :  God  has  predestinated  us  unto  faith." 
(1880,  p.  237.)  This  is  by  no  means  the  case.  To  preordain  to 
adoption  is  not  —  to  preordain  unto  faith.  Our  fathers  have 
incontrovertibly  established  this  over  against  the  Calvinists,  who, 
just  as  Missouri,  would  like  to  prove  their  election  untO  faith  from 
these  words.  For  the  refutation  of  this  objection  a  passage  from 
the  celebrated  writings  of  the  great  theologian  John  Gerhard  may 
be  in  place.  He  writes:  "We  say,  the  consideration  of  faith  be- 
longs to  the  decree  of  election.  This  is  not  contradicted  by  the 
statement  of  the  apostle  that  God  has  chosen  us  unto  the  adoption 
of  children.  We  furnish  the  proof:  God  has  formed  a  decree 
to  receive  certain  persons  from  the  lost  human  race  as  His  chil- 
dren and  finally  to  save  them  (for  with  this' adoption  eternal  life 
is  most  intimately  united,  Rom.  8,  17).  Of  what  nature  the  decree 
was  is  shown  by  the  execution  of  it.  As  in  time  men  become 
partakers  of  the  adoption  through  faith,  so  the  consideration  of 
faith  can  not  be  excluded  from  the  appointment  unto  adoption 
and  eternal  salvation.  Whom  God  accepts  as  His  children  in 
time.  He  has  also  resolved  to  accept  in  eternity;  and  in  what 
manner  God  in  time  accepts  certain  ones  as  children,  in  the  same 
manner  He  has  decreed  to  accept  them  in  eternity:  therefore  the 
consideration  of  the  faith  to  be  bestowed,  as  well  as  of  the  fore- 
seen faith,  belongs  to  the  decree  of  election.  The  apostle  says 
expressly:  "Having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  chil- 
dren by  Jesus  Christ  to  Himself";  He  has  elected  us  in  Christ; 
but  God  could  not  elect  men  in  Christ  without  regard  to  faith, 
since  faith  alone  joins  us  to  Christ  and  unites  with  Him.  We 
therefore  compare  with  this  apostolic  expression  the  passage 
John  1,  12:  "But  as  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  He 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on 
His  name."     As,  therefore,  God  offers  here  in  time  the  blessing 


730  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

of  adoption  through  faith,  so  He  has  from  eternity  formed  the 
decree  to  accept  those  as  children  and  to  constitute  them  as  heirs, 
concerning  whom  He  foresaw  that  they,  by  the  help  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  through  the  Word,  would  perseveringly  believe  in  Christ." 
(Loc.  Theol.  IV,  p.  212).  —  Far  from  teaching  an  election  unto 
faith,  these  words  rather  most  gloriously  confirm  the  doctrine  that 
God  has  elected  in  viev;  of  faith;  for  adoption  follows  faith,  if 
not  in  point  of  time,  yet  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  as  Gerhard  here 
unanswerably  proves. 

If  we  ask:  What  is  the  cause  that  in  eternity  moved  God  to 
elect  a  sinner  out  of  the  lost  mass  of  mankind  unto  salvation? 
the  apostle  here  answers:  Only  this  —  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ, 
not  merely  as  acquired,  but  also  as  appropriated;  or:  the  merit 
of  Jesus  Christ  apprehended  (according  to  the  foresight  of  God) 
in  faith.  The  apostle  does  not  teach  in  our  passage  an  election 
unto  faith,  but  certainly  an  election  in  foresight  or  in  view  of  faith. 
Election  in  the  strictest  sense  presupposes  faith.  Only  when  one 
speaks  of  election  comprehensively,  as  does  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, where  the  various  provisions  of  the  universal  plan  of  salva- 
tion and  the  choice  of  individuals  are  understood,  only  then  can 
one  say  that  that  faith  flows  from  election. 

Furthermore,  2  Thess.  2,  1.3,  is  an  exceedingly  important 
passage  in  the  present  controversy.  It  reads:  "But  we  are  bound 
to  give  thanks  alway  to  God  for  you,  brethren  beloved  of  the 
Lord,  because  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salva- 
tion through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth." 
If  these  words  clearly  and  plainly  teach  anything,  it  is  that  God 
has  chosen  the  elect,  not  unto  faith,  to  say  nothing  of  choosing 
them  unto  the  call,  but  in  sanctification  and  in  faith  unto  salvation; 
that  therefore  not  the  mere  pleasure  of  God,  but  Jesus  Christ's 
merit  embraced  in  faith,  decided  their  eternal  appointment  unto 
salvation.  The  Missourians  therefore  fear  this  passage  most  of 
all.  It  causes  them  the  most  trouble.  Therefore  several  explana- 
tions of  the  passage  have  been  tried,  but  so  far  their  attempts  have 
miserably  failed. 

The  Minutes  of  the  Western  District,  1877,  bring  forward  the 
following  explanation,  p.  30:  "Paul  would  say:  We  are  elected 
unto  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  unto  belief  of  the  truth.  .  .  . 
We  have  been  elected  from  the  beginning  unto  salvation  in  sancti- 
fication of  the  Spirit  and  in  faith,  in  order  that  we  may  be  in  sanc- 
tification and  in  faith,  i.  e.  in  obedience  to  God's  Word."    Although 


Thesis    V.  731 

the  apostle  expressly  says:  "in  sanctification  —  in  faith  God  has 
elected  you",  the  "in"  is  changed  by  a  cunning  stroke  into  "unto" 
and  we  have  tlie  following:  God  has  elected  unto  sanctification 
and  unto  faith.  Although  the  apostle  mentions  "sanctification  of 
the  Spirit"  first,  letting  "belief  of  the  truth"  follow,  thereby  indi- 
cating that  he  does  not  speak  here  of  the  sanctification  of  life, 
which  follows  faith,  but  of  sanctification  in  the  wider  sense,  namely 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  which  faith  is  wrought;  still, 
regardless  of  the  apostle's  order,  no  scruples  are  shown  about 
understanding  "sanctification  of  the  Spirit"  to  mean  sanctification 
of  life  and  explaining  "belief  of  the  truth"  by:  obedience  to  God's 
Word.  In  this  manner  "election  unto  faith"  has  successfully  been 
explained  into  the  present  verse!  —  But  is  not  that  revising  the 
Holy  Spirit's  work  after  a  terrible  fashion  and  "taking  Him  under 
instruction  as  though  He  did  not  know  how  to  express  what  He 
wanted  to  reveal"? 

Later  on,  it  seemed  advisable  to  Missouri,  in  order  "to  pro- 
ceed more  safely",  to  renounce  this  explanation,  so  evidently  con- 
tradictory to  the  clear  words  of  Scripture.  But  instead  of  accept- 
ing the  interpretation  which  most  forcibly  urges  itself  upon  every 
unprejudiced  reader  of  the  Scriptures,  they  have  tried  another, 
which  is  in  fact  not  another,  for  it  only  veils  the  matter  a  little 
better.  They  have  granted  that  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  does 
not  denote  sanctification  of  life,  as  the  Minutes  of  1877  declared, 
but  the  whole  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  namely,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  "calls  us  by  the  gospel,  enlightens  us  with  His  gifts,  sancti- 
fies and  keeps  us  in  the  true  faith."  They  have  further  conceded 
that  they  must  give  up  the  explanation:  unto  sanctification  and 
unto  faith,  which  the  Minutes  of  '77  defended.  Still  more  decid- 
edly have  they  rejected  the  interpretation:  God  lias  elected  you 
through  sanctification  and  through  belief  of  the  truth;  to  repre- 
sent man's  faith  as  a  means  of  election,  which  is  an  act  of  God, 
they  consider  a  most  unhappy  thought.  Just  how  this  is  an  un- 
happy thought,  it  is  hard  to  discover.  Justification  is  certainly 
an  act  of  God,  as  well  as  election.  And  yet  every  page  of  tHe 
Scriptures  tells  us  that  we  are  justified  by  faith;  and  our  Church 
believes,  teaches  and  confesses  that  faith  is  the  means  of  justifi- 
cation, of  this  act  of  God.  Is  this  too,  perhaps,  an  awkward 
notion,  of  which  a  St.  Louis  professor  can  no  longer  conceive?  — 
St.  Louis  therefore  prefers  to  understand  "through  sanctification 
and  through  belief"  as  denoting  the  way  and  manner  in  which 


732  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

God  has  elected.  And  we  too  can  be  content  with  this.  We  are 
fully  satisfied  with  this  exegesis,  if  only  these  words  are  really 
understood  of  the  way  and  manner  in  which  God  has  elected,  of 
the  mode  of  election,  of  the  order  in  which  the  election  of  certain 
individuals  has  taken  place.  More  than  this  we  really  do  not 
want.  But  this  is  something  altogether  different  from  what  Prof. 
Stoeckhardt  makes  out  of  this  way  and  manner  in  which  God  has 
elected.  He  makes  it  to  mean  this:  "God  has  elected  to  salva- 
tion in  such  a  way,  that  He  at  the  same  tijiie  embraced  in  salvation 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth.  .  .  .  The 
apostle  would  then  say:   When  God  fornjed  the  eternal  decree  of 

election  to  salvation He  did  it  in  such  a  way  that  He  at 

the  same  time  adopted  faith,  as  the  means  and  the  way  of  salva- 
tion, into  that  eternal  act  of  His  will.  When  God  predestinated 
you  unto  salvation  He  at  the  same  time  and  by  this  act  determined 
to  sanctify  you  through  His  Holy  Spirit  and  to  lead  you  to  belief 
of  the  Gospel  .  .  .  .  or,  in  short:  you  shall  be  saved  through 
the  ministration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  through  faith.  ...  It 
is  the  same  whether  one  says:  God  has  predestinated  each  and 
every  one  of  the  elect  unto  faith  and  unto  salvation"  ("L.  u.  W.", 
1880,  p.  235.)  What  does  all  this  talk  say  but  this:  "chosen 
through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth"  means 
still:  elected  unto  sanctification,  unto  the  call,  unto  faith.  At 
first  this  interpretation  is  renounced,  in  order  "to  proceed  more 
safely";  but  now  the  same  thing  is  trotted  out  again,  embellished 
a  little  better,  and  receives  the  name  "way  and  manner"  in  which 
God  has  resolved  to  save  the' elect.  God  has  elected  in  faith  is  to 
mean:  God  has  picked  out,  according  to  a  secret,  hidden  will,  a 
certain  number  of  persons  for  Himself,  and  at  the  same  time 
decreed  to  bring  these  unto  faith,  to  preserve  them  in  faith  and 
to  save  them  through  faith.  PJut  wdiere  does  the  apostle  say  that? 
God  hath  chosen  you  through  sanctification  and  belief  of  the  truth, 
he  says;  but  where  is  it  written:  in  choosing  you,  God  has  at  the 
same  time  resolved  to  save  you  by  the  way  of  faith?  That  is 
nowhere  contained  in  this  passage.  Prof.  Stoeckhardt  makes  that 
addition,  in  order  to  introduce  his  election  unto  faith.  —  Oh,  that 
the  Reverend  Professors  at  St.  Louis  would  at  length  heed  what 
was  once  written  in  "L.  u.  W.":  "What  creature  in  heaven  or  on 
earth  has  a  right  to  add  aught  to  the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  complete  them  from  the  resources  of  his  reason  as  though 
the  Scriptures  were  incomplete?" 


Thesis    V.  733: 

"God  hath  chosen  you  to  salvation  through  sanctification  of 
the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth"  —  Missouri  is  not  able  to  over- 
come this  passage.  It  is  so  clear  and  immovable  that  even  the 
skill  of  the  St.  Louis  masters  is  here  brought  to  shame.  This  text 
remains  unshaken  over  against  all  their  attempts  at  expounding  or 
impounding  it:  elected  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  not  unto 
the  call;  elected  in  faith,  not  unto  faith.  We  may  appropriately 
apply  here  the  saying:  "Thy  word  stands  firm  as  a  wall,  no  man 
can  pervert  it,  however  skillful  he  be."  This  one  passage  upsets 
Missouri's  Calvinizing  doctrine  of  election.  Let  us  observe  these 
important  words  somewhat  more  closely.  We  find  all  the  chief 
points  of  the  doctrine  of  election  here  stated.  The  apostle  says 
to  the  Christians  at  Thessalonica:  God  has  elected  you,  i.  e.  He 
has  chosen  you  for  Himself  from  among  the  lost,  ruined  world,, 
has  dedicated  you  in  preference  to  others  unto  Himself.  And 
when  did  this  take  place?  "From  the  beginning,"  says  the  apostle, 
which  is  manifestly  the  same  as:  "before  the  foundation  of  the 
world",  Eph.  1,  4.  And  whereunto  has  God  elected?  Not  unto 
the  call,  not  unto  faith,  as  Missouri  claims,  but  unto  salvation, 
answers  the  apostle.  If  we  ask:  What  men  has  God  elected?  in 
what  condition,  in  what  disposition  were  they  when  God  appointed 
them  unto  salvation?  then  the  apostle  gives  us  an  answer  so  clear 
and  definite,  that  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  how  Lutheran  Chris- 
tians can  longer  remain  in  the  dark  regarding  this  question.  The 
apostle  says :  "God  hath  chosen  you  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
and  in  belief  of  the  truth."  What  do  these  words  mean?  "Sanc- 
tification of  the  Spirit",  as  already  remarked,  and  as  conceded  by 
Prof.  Stoeckhardt,  can  not  here  denote  sanctification  in  the  nar- 
row sense,  not  the  God-pleasing  life  of  the  Christian  flowing  from 
faith.  This  appears  from  the  fact,  that  the  apostle  places  sancti- 
fication first  and  faith  afterward.  If  the  apostle  had  wanted  to 
speak  here  of  the  sanctification  of  life,  he  would  surely  have  writ- 
ten :  in  faith  and  in  sanctification.  By  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
the  apostle  understands  what  that  expression  embraces  in  its 
wider  sense,  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  sinner  in  rescu- 
ing him  from  the  doomed  world  and  transplanting  him  into 
redeeming,  saving  communion  with  God,  advancing  and  preserv- 
ing him  therein;  or  as  our  catechism  expresses  it:  "calls  us  by 
the  Gospel,  enlightens  us  with  His  gifts,  sanctifies  and  keeps  us 
in  true  faith."  Sanctification  then  really  consists  in  this,  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  kindles  and  preserves  faith  in  man's  heart.     For  in. 


734  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

faith  alone  does  the  sinner  have  fellowship  with  God.  On  this 
account  the  apostle  adds  the  words:  "in  belief  of  the  truth." 
What  do  these  words  say?  The  truth  is  God's  Word  —  ''Thy 
Word  is  truth",  John  17,  17,  —  the  Gospel  —  "After  that  ye  heard 
the  Word  of  truth,  the  Gospel  of  your  salvation",  Eph.  1,  18  — 
above  all  things  Christ  Himself  —  "I  am  the  way,  the  truth,  and 
the  life",  John  14,  6.  "Belief  of  the  truth",  then,  is  faith  in  the 
Gospel,  faith  in  Christ  —  a  faith  that  trusts  in  the  message  of  sal- 
vation as  undoubted  truth,  a  faith  that  embraces  Christ's  merit. 
The  Holy  Spirit  alone  produces  this  faith,  and  in  doing  so  He 
sanctifies  the  sinner.  When  the  apostle  says:  "God  hath  chosen 
in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  in  belief  of  the  truth",  he  desig- 
nates sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth  (the  belief 
wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  apprehending  Christ's  merit)  as 
the  sphere,  the  circle,  in  which  eternal  election  moves  and  is  exe- 
cuted. The  apostle,  consequently,  says  really  the  same  here  that 
he  declares,  Eph.  1,  4,  in  the  words:  "He  hath  chosen  us  in  Him" 
(Christ).  For  where  the  Scriptures  speak  of  faith,  they  always 
include  Christ's  merit;  and  where  they  speak  of  Christ's  merit 
as  the  cause  of  our  salvation,  they  always  include  faith.  Hence, 
when  we  speak  of  our  salvation,  Christ  and  faith  dare  never  be 
separated.  As  in  Eph.  1,  4,  so  also  here,  the  apostle  teaches  that 
the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ,  grasped  by  faith,  has  decided  election. 
Only,  it  is  more  explicitly  taught  here  than  there  that  reference  to 
faith  dare  not  be  excluded  from  the  divine  decree  of  election;  yet 
at  the  same  time,  that  this  faith  is  indeed  not  man's  own  work,  but' 
solely  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  faith,  effected  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  apprehending  the  merit  of  Christ,  is  the  necessary 
condition  that  precedes  the  selective  appointment  to  salvation. 
If  we  ask:  What  men  in  preference  to  others  did  God  in  eternity 
choose  out  for  Himself  and  appoint  unto  salvation?  The  apostle 
gives  us  the  answer:  God  has  from  eternity  elected  to  salvation  all 
those  individuals,  and  those  only,  of  whom  He,  by  virtue  of  His 
omniscience,  foresaw  that  they,  through  the  power  and  operation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  would  beheve  and  embrace  Christ's  merit  — 
those  whom  His  all-seeing  eye,  penetrating  the  future,  already 
saw  in  the  condition  of  divinely  efifected  faith. 

That  this  is  the  only  correct  interpretation  of  our  passage 
appears  from  the  context.  In  the  preceding  verses  the  apostle 
has  foretold  the  appearance  of  antichirst  and  the  apostasy  of  many 
that  would  be  corrupted  and  believe  a  lie,  and  testifies  that  their 


Thesis    V.  735 

being  deluded  is  their  reward  for  not  having  received  the  love  of 
the  truth.  A  divine  judgment  is  executed  upon  them,  God  Him- 
self delivering  them  over  to  delusion  and  the  belief  of  a  lie,  not 
as  though  HE  did  not  most  earnestly  desire  their  salvation,  but 
in  order  to  punish  them  for  having  wilfully  despised  the  divine 
message  of  salvation.  For  it  is,  undoubtedly,  God's  irrevocable 
decree  to  deliver  those  into  judgment  who  do  not  in  faith  accept 
the  Gospel:  since,  now,  the  apostle  does  not  speak  of  a  judgment 
decreed  against  present,  but  against  future  scorners,  —  he  is 
prophesying  concerning  the  days  of  antichrist  —  he  declares  that 
God  has  resolved  in  eternity  to  abandon  to  judgment  all  those 
whose  wilful  unbelief  He  foresaw.  The  apostle  evidently  con- 
trasts the  elect  with  the  reprobate,  when  he  proceeds:  "But  we 
are  bound  to  give  thanks  alway  to  God  for  you,  brethren  beloved 
of  the  Lord,  because  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to 
salvation  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth." 
Whilst  St.  Paul  says  of  the  reprobate  that  they  have  been  rejected 
because  they  did  not  receive  the  love  of  the  truth,  would  not 
believe,  he  says  of  the  elect  that  they  are  chosen  to  salvation  "in 
belief  of  the  truth".  It  would  be  impossible  for  the  apostle  to  say 
that  the  elect,  in  that  moment  of  eternity  when  God  decided  who 
should  infallibly  be  saved  and  who  not,  appeared  before  God's 
eyes  as  unbelievers,  just  as  did  the  reprobate ;  and  that  whilst  God 
has  rejected  these  on  account  of  their  unbelief,  He  has  chosen 
those,  the  elect,  in  accord  with  the  free  pleasure  of  His  secret  will, 
appointed  them  to  faith,  and  resolved  to  lead  them  infallibly  upon 
the  way  of  faith  unto  salvation.  For  then  the  real  ground  of 
reprobation  would  not  lie,  as  the  apostle  previously  said,  in  wilful 
unbelief,  but  in  the  will  of  God.  The  apostle  would  then  have  con- 
tradicted himself  in  two  verses  immediately  following  one  upon 
another,  by  first  assigning  rejection  to  the  wilful  unbelief  of  man, 
and  in  the  next  verse  transferring,  indirectly  at  least,  this  rejec- 
tion to  the  divine  will.  As  impossible  as  this  is,  so  impossible  is 
it  for  the  words,  elected  "in  faith",  to  mean:  ordained  irrevocably 
according  to  a  free  purpose  in  preference  to  others,  unto  faith, 
and  upon  this  way  of  faith  unto  salvation;  but  they  must  mean: 
appointed  to  salvation  as  believers,  because  in  a  state  of  faith; 
and  consequently  these  words,  taken  into  connection  with  the 
preceding  verses,  would  say :  When  God  in  eternity  decided  who 
should  be  saved  and  who  judged,  men  did  not  stand  perfectly  alike 
before  Him,  but  as  already  divided  into  believers  and  unbelievers. 


736  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

And  according  as  He  saw  them  either  in  faith  or  in  unbelief,  He 
elected  or  rejected  them.  Such  an  understanding  of  the  present 
passage  is  demanded  both  by  the  words  as  they  stand,  and  also 
by  the  context. 

The  simple  meaning  of  these  apostolic  words  is  the  following: 
You  beloved  Thessalonians  are  now  in  the  state  of  faith.  That  is, 
of  course,  not  your  work  and  merrit,  but  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  only,  wrought  in  you  by  means  of  the  Gospel  which  I 
preached  unto  you.  As  believers  in  the  Gospel  you  have  become 
the  possession  of  Jesus  Christ,  have  been  justified  from  your  sins,. 
have  been  accepted  unto  life  eternal,  while  all  those  that  do  not 
believe  the  Gospel  have  been  delivered  unto  judgment.  God  has, 
however,  adjudged  this  salvation  to  you  already  from  eternity,, 
and  not  only  now  in  time.  And  this  eternal  appointment  occurred 
in  just  the  same  way  as  your  acceptance  in  time.  As  you  were 
not  justified  as  disbelievers  of  the  truth,  but  as  believers,  so  you 
were  not  elected  in  eternity  as  unbelievers,  but  as  believers.  For 
it  is  God's  unalterable  decree  that  only  he  that  believeth  shall  be 
saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.  True,  you  were 
not  at  the  time  of  your  election  actually  behevers;  for  you  were 
not  yet  actually  in  existence.  But  as  certainly  as  God  saw  you 
before  you  came  into  existence  (and  it  was  then  He  elected  you),, 
so  certainly  did  He  see  you  called  by  the  Gospel  and  brought  to- 
faith  by  the  working  of  the  HoTy  Ghost.  And  as  such,  believers 
whom  He  knew  beforehand.  He  has  elected  you.  He  hath  chosen 
you  from  the  beginning  to  salvation  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
and  belief  of  the  truth.  —  We  repeat  it:  if  this  passage  teaches 
anything  concerning  election,  then  it  teaches  that  the  elect  have 
been  elected  not  without  faith,  but  in  faith,  as  believers,  in  fore- 
sight of  faith,  or,  what  is  the  same,  for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of 
Jesus  Christ  apprehended  (in  the  foreknowledge  of  God)  in  faith. 

The  very  same  is  taught  also  by  the  next  passage  which  treats 
of  election,  1  Pet.  1,  1,  2:  "Peter,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  the 
elect  who  are  sojourners  of  the  Dispersion  in  Pontus,  Galatia, 
Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia,  according  to  the  foreknowledge 
of  God  the  Father,  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience 
and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ."*  With  these  words 
St.  Peter  greets  the  congregations  of  Minor  Asia,  founded  for  the  ■ 
most  part  by  St.  Paul,  consisting  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians, . 


Revised  Version. 


Thesis    V.  737 

but  principally  of  the  latter.  He  calls  the  members  of  these  con- 
gregations "elect  sojourners",  and  thereby  reminds  them  of  the 
great  advantage  which  they  as  believing  Christians  enjoy  over 
those  who  are  without  a  knowledge  of  Christ.  They  are  now  the 
elect  people  of  God,  whom  God  through  His  gracious  call  has 
separated  from  the  world  and  chosen  for  His  possession. 

And  he  says  ot  these  ''elect  sojourners"  that  they  are  what 
they  are  "according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  in 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ."  They  are  "elect  sojourners",  first  of  all 
"according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father."  These 
words  contain  a  very  important  qualification  of  the  word  "elect." 
If,  in  considering  the  subject  of  predestination,  we  follow  the  lead- 
ing of  our  reason,  we  cannot  (as  also  our  Confessions  declare) 
resist  the  thought:  either  you  are  elected  —  and  then  things  may 
go  as  they  will,  you  must  be  saved  anyhow  —  or:  you  are  not 
elected  —  and  then  you  may  do  what  you  vv'ill,  you'll  be  lost  at 
any  rate.  But  just  to  encounter  such  thoughts,  the  apostle  Peter 
says  here,  as  St.  Paul  says  in  Rom.  8,  that  election  has  taken  place 
according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God.  By  these  words  the 
apostle  leads  us  out  of  eternity  into  time  and  reminds  us  that  God 
turly  knew  in  eternity  what  would  occur  in  time,  and  that  elec- 
tion is  determined  and  conditioned  by  this  divine  foreknowledge. 
For  the  word  "foreknowledge"  does  not  mean,  as  Missouri  main- 
tains, "preordination,  predestination,  fellowship  of  the  elect  with 
God,  determined  beforehand."  As  already  remarked  in  the  expla- 
nation of  Rom.  8,  that  is  nothing  but  an  invention,  a  meaning 
attributed  to  the  word  by  Calvin.  "Foreknowledge"  means  sim- 
ply "to  know  beforehand."  This  word  is  never  used  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  in  any  other  sense,  never  in  the  sense  of  election. 
Therefore  our  Confessions  want  the  difference  between  fore- 
knowledge and  predestination  to  be  accurately  observed  (Muel- 
ler, p.  554).  It  is  therefore  nothing  less  than  a  departure  from 
the  Word  if  any  one,  out  of  regard  for  his  own  thoughts,  would 
make  divine  foreknowledge  mean  predestination.  And  the  whole 
connection  shows  that  foreknowledge  here  must  mean  to  know 
beforehand  and  can  mean  nothing  else.  For  what  sense  do 
we  get  out  of  the  passage  if  we  explain  foreknowledge  and  pre- 
destination to  be  one  and  the  same?  Peter  would  then  reveal 
to  the  Christians,  whom  he  addresses,  the  astounding  fact:  Ye 
are  elected  according  to  election.     Would  not  that  be  perfectly 


738  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

senseless?  Therefore  Prof.  Stoeckhardt  does  not  like  to  say,  as 
do  others,  foreknowledge  is  election:  he  prefers  to  keep  these 
two  ideas  apart,  and  thus  explains  foreknowledge:  "predestined 
fellowship  of  God  with  the  elect."  But  that  is  only  playing 
hide  and  seek  with  words.  For  if  God  has  from  eternity  placed 
certain  persons  into  fellowship  with  Himself,  has  received  them 
rather  than  others  unto  Himself,  then  He  has  thereby  elected 
them.  Or  has  He  not  thereby  chosen  these  out  of  the  mass 
of  the  lost  and  appointed  them  unto  heavenly  rest?  Even 
according  to  Prof.  Stoeckhardt's  explanation  foreknowledge  is 
nothing  but  election.  "To  the  elect  according  to  the  foreknowl- 
edge" means  then,  according  to  his  interpretation:  to  the  elect 
according  to  election.  But  just  as  certainly  as  the  Holy  Ghost 
does  not  use  such  meaningless  phrases,  so  certainly  foreknowl- 
edge does  not  mean  predestine,  but  to  know  beforehand.  Chem- 
nitz, one  of  the  chief  authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  under- 
stands the  word  even  so.  He  says:  "The  disposing,  moving, 
operating  will  does  not  really  belong  to  a  definition  of  divine 
foreknowledge,  but  simply  that  God  knows  what  is  future  before 
it  occurs."  According  to  this  passage,  as  well  as  according  to 
E-Oin.  8,  29,  it  is  firmly  established  that  election  has  not  taken 
place  according  to  an  absolute  will,  but  according  to  foreknowl- 
A^dge,  and  is  determined  and  conditioned  by  the  same. 

To  what  does  this  foreknowledge  of  God,  according  to  which 
■election  has  taken  place,  refer?  What  is  the  object  of  this  fore- 
knowledge? It  is  self-evident  that  divine  foreknowledge  as  here 
used  is  not  unlimited,  relating  to  good  and  evil,  to  things  n'ec- 
-essary  and  things  incidental,  but  limited  by  precise  reference  to 
a  fixed  object.  The  apostle  tells  us  what  this  object  is  to  which 
divine  foreknowledge  relates,  when  he  next  presents  as  a  second 
qualification  of  election  the  words:  "in  sanctification  of  the 
Spirit."  Sanctification  denotes  here  also,  as  in  2  Thess.  2,  13, 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  virtue  of  which,  through 
Word  and  Sacrament,  He  receives  the  sinner  into  the  redeeming, 
saving  fellowship  of  God,  advances  and  preserves  him  therein, 
makes  him  a  believer  and  keeps  him  as  such.  In  this  sanctifica- 
tion of  the  Spirit,  i.  e.  as  persons  who  through  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  have  grasped  in  faith  Christ's  merit,  those,  to 
whom  the  apostle  writes,  have  been  accepted  in  time  as  God's 
peculiar  people,  as  children  and  heirs.  In  sanctification  of  the 
Spirit,  i.  e.,  as  true  believers,  God  the  Lord  has  appointed  or 


Thesis   V.  739 

elected  them  in  eternity  to  sonship  and  heirship,  as  the  apostle 
here  states.  And  God  could  do  this,  because  by  virtue  of  His 
omniscience  He  saw  from  eternity  not  only  that  they  would 
be  born  in  time  as  lost  sinners,  and  would  be  redeemed  through 
Christ,  but  that  they  would  be  baptized,  hear  the  Gospel,  and 
through  these  means,  empowered  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  would 
believe  in  Christ.  Already  in  eternity  they  appeared  before  His 
all-seeing  eye  as  believers,  and  as  such  they  were  elected.  Faith, 
apprehending  Christ's  merit,  was  the  object  to  which  God's  fore- 
knowledge referred,  according  to  which  election  took  place.  God 
did  not  blindly  dash  in  among  men  and  seize  whomever  He  hap- 
pened to  strike;  He  has  not  drawn  the  line  of  separation  between 
sinners  and  sinners  —  all  alike  —  according  to  the  hidden  reasons 
of  a  secret  will,  but  He  has  acted  in  accord  with  the  principle: 
"He  that  believeth  on  the  Son,  hath  life."  Whomever,  by  virtue 
of  His  omniscience.  He  beheld  in  this  faith  He  elected;  whom 
not.  He  rejected.  Elected  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of 
God  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  means  essentially  nothing 
but:  elected  in  view  of  divinely  wrought  faith.  Elected  in  sanc- 
tification of  the  Spirit,  says  the  apostle,  not  unto  sanctification 
of  the  Spirit,  therefore  not  unto  faith,  not  unto  the  call,  as  Mis- 
souri teaches;  for  the  call  and  faith  belong  indeed  to  sancti- 
fication. The  Lutheran  Church  teaches  that  the  second  article 
concerns  all  men.  The  Calvinists  deny  this.  In  this  point  Mis- 
souri is  still  Lutheran.  But  how  is  it  with  respect  to  the  third 
article?  The  Lutheran  allows  that  this  also  is  for  all,  the  Cal- 
vinists, on  the  other  hand,  allow  it  for  the  elect  only.  And 
Missouri?  Now  it  stands  on  the  Lutheran,  now  on  the  Cal- 
vinistic  side;  now  it  still  leaves  the  third  article  for  all  men  and 
again  not  for  all,  but  only  for  the  elect.  In  so  far  as  Missouri 
still  teaches  universal  grace,  it  allows  the  third  article  for  all; 
but  in  so  far  as  the  selection  of  individuals  that  are  infallibly 
to  be  saved  is  placed  between  the  second  and  the  third  article, 
and  from  this  choice  is  said  to  proceed  a  special  call,  necessarily 
attaining  its  object,  and  a  richer  grace,  unconditionally  guaran- 
teeing salvation  for  these  chosen  ones  according  to  the  free 
purpose — in  so  far  Missouri  does  not  allow  the  third  article 
for  all,  but  only  for  the  elect.  The  apostle  Peter  knows  nothing 
of  such  an  election  unto  the  call  and  unto  faith,  and  which  stands 
in  open  contradiction  to  the  revealed  counsel  of  grace.  He  rec- 
ognizes  only   an    election    that   corresponds    perfectly   with   the 


740  A  Testhnony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

revealed  plan  of  grace,  an  election  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit, 
i.  e.  in  faith.  As  God  does  not  save  men  according  to  mere 
pleasure,  but  according  to  a  certain  order,  so  also  He  does  not 
elect  according  to  mere  pleasure,  but  according  to  an  appointed 
order.  As  He  justifies  and  saves  only  those  who  stand  in  faith, 
so  He  has  elected  only  those  whom  He  foreknew  as  believers. 
The  separation  of  individuals  does  not,  in  the  divine  mind,  pre- 
cede the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  but  follows  it.  The  separa- 
tion is  not  made  unto  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  but  in  the 
sanctification  the  separation  is  accomplished,  i.  e.  the  sanctified,, 
believers,  are  selected.  Missouri  may  assert  ever  so  stoutly  that 
the  Scriptures  do  not  by  a  single  word  indicate  that  faith  is  to- 
be  considered  as  a  presupposition  of  election;  that  they  know 
nothing  of  the  foreknowledge  of  faith  as  a  basis  of  election  —  it 
is  not  true.  As  the  apostle  Paul  teaches  in  Rom.  8,  29,  so  here 
Peter  also  teaches:  elect  sojourners  according  to  the  foreknowl- 
edge of  God  the  Father,  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  —  thus 
he  teaches  in  the  most  emphatic  manner  an  election  in  view  of 
faith.  But  the  apostle  adds  yet  another  qualification  to  the  "elect 
sojourners."  He  says  that  they  are  elected  "unto  obedience  and 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ."  Therewith  the  apostle 
shows  what  the  object  and  goal  of  their  election  is,  whereunta 
God  in  election  has  appointed  them,  namely:  unto  obedience 
and  unto  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Here,  according  to  Missouri's  claim,  her  doctrine  of  election 
is  expressed  in  the  most  emphatic  manner.  "The  apostle  hereby 
teaches,"  so  says  "L.  u.  W.,"  "with  clear,  plain  words,  that  we 
are  elected  unto  faith  and  unto  justification."  But  where  does 
"unto  faith"  stand  in  clear,  plain  words?  Why,  some  one  replies, 
don't  you  see  the  express  declaration:  "unto  obedience"?  Yes, 
surely,  but  where  does  it  say:  "unto  faith"?  It  is  amazing  how 
brisk  and  spry  Missouri  has  become  in  explaining  (laying  out) 
the  Scriptures  since  the  new  "Reformation"  has  begun.  Paul 
says  2  Thess.  2,  13:  "elected  in  belief  of  the  truth."  But  these 
words  are  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  Neo-Missourian  doc- 
trine  of  election.  In  the  Minutes  of  '77  we  get  this  exegesis: 
"unto  obedience  to  God's  Word."  Peter  says  here:  elected  "unto 
obedience."  But  then  that  explanation  does  not  fit  well.  Unto 
faith  fits  better.  Without  hesitation,  therefore,  they  say  and 
interpret:  unto  faith.  At  one  time  they  change  "faith"  into  obe- 
dience, at  another  time  obedience  into  faith.     But  is  that  abiding- 


Thesis   V.  741 

by  the  Word?     Or  is  it  not  much  rather,  in  a  horrifying  manner, 
putting  the  Holy  Ghost  to  school? 

True,  they  have  asserted,  in  order  to  support  their  cause, 
that  when  the  Scriptures  speak  of  obedience  and  add  nothing 
Seise,  they  mean  faith.  But  that  is  merely  a  claim  invented  for 
the  occasion.  The  very  opposite  is  the  case:  When  the  Scrip- 
tures speak  of  obedience  without  adding  anything  else,  they  mean 
obedience  in  general  and  not  only  justifying  faith  as  such.  Of 
course  faith  can  also  be  called  obedience,  for  obedience  is  cheer- 
ful submission  to  the  divine  will  as  revealed  in  the  Word.  This 
will  of  God  is  a  double  one:  the  holy  will,  as  revealed  in  the 
law,  and  the  gracious  will  announced  in  the  Gospel.  In  so  far, 
now,  as  faith  submits  itself  to  the  gracious  will  of  God  revealed 
in  the  Gospel,  it  too  is  obedience  and  can  likewise  be  called  obe- 
dience. And  there  are  really  some  passages  of  Holy  Scripture, 
.in  which  faith  is  called  obedience,  where  faith  is  actually  meant 
by  the  word  obedience.  But  where  such  is  the  case,  the  Scrip- 
tures expressly  indicate  it.  Thus  Paul  says,  e.  g.,  Rom.  1,  5, 
that  it  is  his  ofBce  to  establish  the  obedience  of  faith,  i.  e.,  an 
obedience  that  consists  in  faith;  and  2  Cor.  10,  5,  he  says  that 
he  brings  into  captivity  every  thought  to  the  obedience  of  Christ 
(i.  e.,  unto  Christ).  Furthermore,  1  Pet.  1,  22:  "Seeing  ye  have 
purified  your  souls  in  your  obedience  to  the  truth."  That  faith  is 
understood  in  these  passages  is  clear.  For  this  is  an  obedience 
unto  the  truth,  the  Gospel,  unto  Christ  the  founder  and  contents 
of  the  Gospel  —  an  obedience  that  can  be  nothing  but  a  believing 
acceptation  of  the  message  of  salvation.  In  the  first  passage  it 
is  even  stated  that  this  obedience  is  faith.  But  why  must  we 
in  these  passages  understand  obedience  to  mean  faith?  Because 
the  Scriptures  themselves  indicate  that  they  are  only  speaking 
of  submission  to  the  gracious  will  revealed  in  the  Gospel.  But 
where  the  Scriptures  do  not  further  particularize,  obedience  is 
meant  in  general,  i.  e.  svibmission  to  the  whole  will  of  God 
revealed  in  the  Word;  there  the  whole  conduct  of  a  believing, 
justified  child  of  God  is  understood,  as  this  is  shown  in  faith 
and  life.  And  such  is  the  use  of  the  wcrd  in  our  passage. 
■"Elected  unto  obedience,"  therefore  does  not  mean,  chosen  before 
others  unto  faith,  untD  conversion,  but  it  means:  appointed  unto 
humble  and  childlike  conduct  over  against  the  divine  will.  The 
apostle  says  here  essentially  the  same  that  Paul  says  Eph.  1,  4: 


742  A  Testbnoyiy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

God  "hath  chosen  us  in  Him,  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without 
blame  before  Him  in  love." 

This  construction  of  the  text  is  demanded  by  the  order  of 
thought  in  the  three  qualifications  by  which  the  apostle  limits 
the  word  "elect."  He  has  said  that  election  has  occurred  accord- 
ing to  divine  foreknowledge,  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  i.  e. 
in  the  faith  wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  When  God  elected. 
He  did  not  behold  those,  whom  He  chose,  as  being  in  Adam, 
lost  in  the  sight  of  the  law  and  knowing  nothing  of  the  Gospel, 
but  He  beheld  them  in  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  as  united 
with  Christ,  as  believers,  and  as  believers,  not  as  unbelievers,. 
He  elected  them.  It  is  this  that  the  apostle  expresses  concern- 
ing the  elect  in  the  first  two  qualifications.  When  now  he  pro- 
ceeds: "unto  obedience,"  he  certainly  can  not  mean:  You,  that 
have  come  to  faith  and  that  are  elect  according  to  the  foreknowl- 
edge of  God,  are  elected  unto  this,  that  ye  should  believe;  the 
aim  of  God  in  your  election  was  that  He  might  make  you  believ- 
ers. Yes,  if  he  had  said:  God  has  appointed  you,  who  still  lie 
before  His  eyes  in  unbelief,  unto  the  obedience  of  faith,  of  the 
gospel,  of  Christ,  then  one  might  give  the  rendering:  God  has 
elected  you  unto  faith.  However,  to  say  of  those  who  have  been 
elected  as  believers,  as  in  the  state  of  faith,  that  they  have  been 
elected  so  that  they  should  become  believers,  is  altogether  sense- 
less. If  we  do  not  want  to  ascribe  nonsense  to  the  apostle,  we 
must  take  his  words  as  they  read,  namely:  you,  the  believing 
children  of  God,  are  appointed  by  God  unto  cheerful  and  willing 
submission  to  His  whole  will  as  revealed  in  Law  and  Gospel, 
that  you  approve  yourselves  in  work  and  in  suffering  as  His 
obedient  children.  That  this,  and  nothing  else,  is  the  meaning 
of  the  apostle,  appears  from  the  fact  that  he  elsewhere  uses  the 
word  "obedience"  in  this  manner.  In  the  13th  verse  of  our 
chapter  he  admonishes  the  elect  sojourners:  "Wherefore,  girding 
up  the  loins  of  your  mind,  be  sober  and  set  your  hope  perfectly 
on  the  grace  that  is  to  be  brought  unto  you  at  the  revelation 
of  Jesus  Christ;  as  children  of  obedience,  not  fashioning  your- 
selves according  to  your  former  lusts  in  the  time  of  your  igno- 
rance." What  does  the  apostle  wish  to  say  in  this  connection? 
He  desires  to  say:  You  Christians  have  through  the  Holy  Ghost 
come  to  faith  and  have  become  God's  children,  being  born  again 
unto  a  living  hope  through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  untO' 


Thesis   V.  743 

an  inheritance  incorruptible,  and  undefiled,  and  that  fadeth  not 
away,  reserved  in  heaven  for  you.  Show  yourselves  in  all  your  life 
as  obedient  children,  or  as  "children  of  obedience,"  by  setting 
your  hope  altogether  on  the  grace  of  God  and  by  no  longer  living 
according  to  the  lusts  of  the  flesh.  Thus  the  apostle  tells  us 
as  clearly  as  possible  what  he  understands  by  "obedience";  not 
faith  alone,  he  does  not  speak  of  the  former  conversion  of  the 
sinner  through  faith,  the  transplanting  of  the  unregenerate  from 
a  state  of  sin  and  wrath  into  a  state  of  faith  and  of  grace,  —  for 
he  speaks  to  regenerate,  sanctified  Christians  who  have  become 
believers — ;  but  he  understands  by  "obedience"  the  whole  sub- 
missive conduct  of  believers,  as  justified  Christians,  over  against 
the  divine  will,  which  conduct  consists  in  an  exclusive  trust  in 
the  gracious  promises  of  the  Gospel  and  in  a  holy  walk  accord- 
ing to  the  divine  Law.  Believing  Christians  are  appointed  unto 
this  obedience.  That  they  prove  this  obedience,  this  God  had  in 
view  in  their  conversion  and  justification  in  time,  as  well  as  in 
their  election  in  eternity.  True,  this  obedience  embraces  not 
only  what  we  are  accustomed  to  call  good  works,  but  also  Chris- 
tian faith,  not,  however,  in  so  far  as  that  faith  is  the  transplanting 
of  the  sinner  from  a  state  of  sin  and  of  wrath  into  a  state  of 
grace,  but  only  in  so  far  as  it  constitutes  the  principal  part  of  a 
Christian's  filial  conduct  towards  God.  A  man  must  come  to 
faith  through  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  through  Him 
be  justified  and  regenerated,  before  we  can  speak  of  obedience 
on  the  part  of  man.  Filial  obedience  presupposes  acceptance 
into  the  filial  condition.  He  that  has  believed  and  has  thus 
become  a  justified  and  regenerate  child  of  God,  should  above  all 
approve  himself  as  a  child  of  God  in  the  manner  described  by 
Luther  in  "The  Large  Catechism":  "That  the  heart  know  no 
other  trust  or  confidence  than  in  Him,  and  do  not  suffer  itself 
to  be  torn  from  Him,  but  may,  for  Him,  risk  and  disregard  every- 
thing upon  earth"  (Miiller,  p.  388).  In  so  far  faith  of  course 
belongs  to  the  obedience  which  should  employ  Christians  accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  God.  In  so  far,  but  in  so  far  only,  Peter  here 
includes  faith.  —  The  meaning  of  the  word,  the  context,  and  par- 
allel passages  all  go  to  prove  that  the  apostle,  by  the  word  obe- 
dience, does  by  no  means  understand  converting,  justifying  faith 
only,  as  Missouri  would  have  it,  but  the  whole  conduct  agreeable 
to  the  divine  will,  as  believing  Christians  are  called  to  manifest  it. 
Yet  Missouri  objects  that  the  context  does  not  allow  thi^ 


744  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctriyie,  Etc. 

construction  of  obedience.  For,  the  apostle  says  not  only: 
■elected  unto  obedience,  but  adds:  "unto  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ."  But  sprinkling  with  Christ's  blood  denotes 
justification.  In  this  connection,  therefore,  obedience  can  denote 
nothing  but  faith  embracing  Christ's  merit,  by  which  we  are 
justified.  Now  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  sprinkling  with  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ  means:  justification,  deliverance  from  the 
guilt  and  the  punishment  of  sin  on  the  basis  of  the  merit  of  Jesus 
Christ,  absolution.  From  the  word  itself  it  in  no  way  appears 
that  the  first  absolution,  which  is  bestowed  upon  the  sinner  just 
converted  from  his  evil  ways,  is  meant.  It  can  just  as  well  be 
that  absolution  which  is  daily  granted  unto  all  Christians  that 
have  long  been  in  a  state  of  grace.  Absolution,  deliverance  from 
the  guilt  and  the  punishment  of  sin  on  the  basis  of  the  merit  of 
Jesus  Christ,  can  mean  this,  as  well  as  the  other.  If  by  the 
absolution  here  under  consideration,  the  first  absolution  must 
necessarily  be  understood,  the  absolution,  namely,  that  is  granted 
to  the  godless  man  newly  converted  and  whereby  he,  formerly 
subject  to  wrath  and  judgment,  is  received  into  the  state  of  God's 
pardoned  children:  then  of  course  justifying  faith  might  be  under- 
stood by  obedience.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  Far  from  under- 
standing the  expression:  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ, 
to  mean  the  justification  of  a  formerly  unconverted  sinner,  we 
can  not  at  all,  according  tO'  the  context,  find  this  meaning  in  the 
passage.  The  apostle  sets  forth  this  sprinkling  with  Christ's 
blood  as  an  end  of  the  election  accomplished  according  to  the 
foreknowledge  of  God  in  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit.  He 
does  not  speak  of  people  who  up  to  that  time  had  lain  in  unbe- 
lief under  divine  wrath,  but  of  such  as  were  already,  through  the 
working  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  believing  Christians,  at  least 
according  to  God's  foresight,  and  who,  in  the  moment  of  eternity 
when  their  election  occurred,  stood  in  grace  and  sonship  and 
as  sprinkled  with  Christ's  blood  before  the  all-seeing  eye  of  God. 
It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  find  here  a  discussion  of  reception 
into  the  state  of  grace  and  sonship,  but  only  of  preservation  in 
this  state;  but  this  preservation  occurs  through  obedience,  above 
all,  however,  through  continued  sprinkling  with  the  blood  of 
Christ,  daily  forgiveness  of  sin.  For  since  believing  Christians 
never  render  perfect  obedience,  but  daily  sin  much  and  often, 
and  hence  daily  merit  God's  wrath  and  condemnation,  they  there- 


Thesis   V.  745 

fore  need  daily  purification  through  Christ's  blood,  if  they  would 
remain  God's  children  and  heirs.  It  is  then  by  no  means  neces- 
sary that  the  word  obedience,  by  reason  of  its  being  connected 
with  sprinkling,  etc.,  must  denote:  the  faith  that  grasps  Christ's 
merit,  that  translates  from  a  state  of  wrath  into  a  state  of  grace. 
Peter  has  no  knowledge  of  such  a  thing  as  the  Missourian  elec- 
tion unto  faith.  By  both  words,  obedience  and  sprinkling,  the 
apostle  describes  the  state  of  God's  children  on  earth,  which  state 
embraces  willing  submission  to  God's  will  and  then  also  daily 
■cleansing  from  sin  through  the  blood  of  Christ.  Not  unto  faith, 
unto  conversion,  unto  the  call,  as  Missouri  says,  but  unto  obe- 
dience and  daily  repentance  believing  Christians  are  appointed. 
At  this  God  aimed  in  election:  they  are  elect  "according  to  the 
foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  in  srnctification  of  the  Spirit, 
unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ." 
And  now,  to  sum  up  everything  briefly,  the  simple  meaning 
of  the  apostle's  words  is  as  follows.  You,  dear  believing  Chris- 
tians, are  preferred  above  all  other  men,  as  Israel  was  formerly 
chosen  above  the  heathen,  namely  a  chosen  generation.  Through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit  God  has  separated  you  from  the  lost 
world  and  received  you  as  His  dear  children  and  as  heirs  of 
heaven.  And  as  God  now  in  time  really  executes  this  plan,  so 
did  He  in  eternity  resolve  to  do.  God  has  from  eternity  appointed 
and  elected  you  to  be  His  children.  God  has,  of  course,  not  done 
this  blindly,  as  though  He  had  at  random  thrust  His  hand  into 
the  mass  of  humanity  and  accidentally  seized  on  you.  He  has 
not  dealt  according  to  the  bare,  absolute  purpose  of  His  secret 
will,  as  though  He  had  picked  out  certain  persons  in  preference 
to  others,  from  among  a  mass  of  sinners  all  alike  and  undistin- 
guished from  one  another,  to  be  His  favorites,  and  appointed 
these  to  faith  and  upon  the  vvay  of  faith  unto  salvation,  and  had 
not  so  done  with  regard  to  others  simply  —  because  He  willed 
it  so.  No!  God  has  elected  you  according  to  His  foreknowledge 
in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit.  As  you  have  now  in  faith  become 
God's  children,  so  God  from  eternity  has  foreknown  you  as  believ- 
ers in  Christ,  and  as  such,  as  believers.  He  has  elected  you.  As 
you  did  not  become  God's  children  without  faith,  before  faith 
came,  so  you  were  not  elected  (according  to  God's  foreknowledge) 
without  faith,  as  unbelievers.  And  as  you  now,  as  Christians, 
are  called  to  live  in  obedience  to  God's  will  and  in  daily  repent- 


746  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

ance,  so  you  have  been  appointed  thereto  from  eternity.  God 
has  elected  you  unto  obedience  and  unto  sprinkhng  with  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  If  you  in  this  way  make  your  calling 
and  election  sure,  you  will  certainly  receive  the  end  of  faith  — 
your  soul's  salvation.  —  Far  from  contradicting  St.  Paul,  and 
Christ  Himself,  by  preaching  tlie  Missouri  doctrine  of  a  selection 
of  certain  individuals  unto  the  call,  unto  conversion,  unto  faith, 
and  this  according  to  a  free,  uncircumscribed  purpose  of  the 
divine  will,  he  holds  in  perfect  harmony  with  all  other  passages 
of  Scripture  that  God  has  not  elected  according  to  an  absolute 
purpose,  not  according  to  a  secret  plan,  not  without  faith,  not 
unto  faith,  but  in  faith,  in  foresight  of  faith,  for  the  sake  of  the 
merit  of  Jesus  Christ  apprehended  (according  to  the  divine  fore- 
knowledge) in  faith. 

Let  us  finally  glance  once  more  at  all  the  scriptural  state- 
ments cited.  In  Matt.  22,  1-14,  we  learned  that  the  marriage 
garment,  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  embraced  in  faith,  decides 
and  has  decided  concerning  acceptance  and  rejection  in  time  and 
in  eternity.  In  Rom.  S,  28-30,  we  heard  that  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion is  not  totally  or  essentially  different  from  the  universal  decree 
of  salvation,  but  is  included  in  the  universal  decree  of  salvation, 
which  decree  makes  salvation  conditional  on  the  presence  of  faith; 
and  that  therefore  the  eternal  appointment  of  certain  persons  to 
glorification  is  conditioned  by  the  foresight  of  faith.  In  Eph.  1^ 
3--5,  we  were  shown  that  as  the  blessing  of  God  is  dispensed  in 
time,  so  also  in  eternity  election  took  place  in  Christ,  in  believing 
fellowship  with  Christ.  2  Thess.  2,  13,  and  1  Pet.  1,  2,  finally, 
taught  us  that  election  was  not  unto  sanctification  and  unto  faith^ 
but  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  in  belief  of  the  truth.  And 
in  the  last  passage  we  heard  again,  as  in  Rom.  8,  that  election 
was  determined  by  the  foresight  of  faith.  We  nowhere  found 
the  slightest  support  for  an  election  unto  faith  and  according  to 
God's  mere  pleasure.  Only  through  forced  distortions  of  the 
words  of  Scripture  was  it  possible  for  the  Missourians  to  intro- 
duce their  Calvinizmg  doctrine  of  election  into  Holy  Writ.  If 
we  furthermore  add  that  the  Scriptures  expressly  state  that  God 
has  elected  believers,  as  we  see  in  James  2,  5:  "Hath  not  God 
chosen  the  poor  of  this  world  rich  in  faith?"  that  they  afBrm  Heb. 
11,  G:  "But  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please"  God,  thus 
proving  that  God  could  not  elect  without  regard  to  faith:    then 


Thesis    V.  747 

we  may  safely  assert  that  he  scriptural  proof  for  the  doctrine, 
that  God  did  not  elect  according  to  a  free  purpose,  but  in  fore- 
knowledge of  faith,  has  been  furnished  as  powerfully  and  irre- 
sistibly as  it  can  be  furnished  for  any  doctrine.  The  words: 
"God  has  elected  in  foresight  of  faith"  do  not  appear  in  just  so 
many  letters  and  syllables  in  the  passages  quoted.  But  if  a  doc- 
trine can  only  then  be  shown  to  be  scriptural  when  the  very 
words  employed  by  the  church  are  found  in  the  Bible,  then 
the  Confessions  of  the  church  have  a  poor  chance.  Where  do 
we  find  in  Scripture  the  exact  words:  God  is  one  in  essence  and 
triune  in  persons?  that  the  divine  nature  in  Christ  has  com- 
municated its  attributes  to  the  human  nature?  that  the  church, 
properly  speaking,  is  invisible?  that  the  ministerial  office  is  con- 
veyed through  the  call?  that  Christ's  body  and  blood  are  sac- 
ramentally  united  with  the  bread  and  the  wine  in  the  Holy  Sup- 
per? Yes,  where  in  the  Bible  do  we  find  the  Lutheran  Church's 
phrase  "In,  with  and  under"  in  exactly  these  same  words?  No- 
where. If  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  appointment  of  certain 
individuals  to  salvation  in  foresight  of  faith  were  proved  to  be 
unscriptural,  because  the  identical  words  and  syllables  are  not 
discernible  in  the  Bible,  then  these  other  doctrines  can  not  be 
established  as  scriptural,  for  the  individual  words  and  phrases 
in  v/hich  the  church  has  expressed  them  are  just  as  little,  as  in 
the  former  case,  to  be  found  in  the  Bible.  Only  then  to  recog- 
nize a  doctrine  as  scriptural  when  the  ecclesiastic  and  theological 
mode  of  expression  can  be  produced  letter  for  letter  and  syllable 
for  syllable  from  the  Scriptures,  is  fanaticism,  yea  —  madness. 
We  are  not  so  much  concerned,  in  the  reproduction  of  a  doc- 
trine, about  the  presentation  of  it  in  the  identical  original  words, 
as  we  are  concerned  about  the  matter,  the  substance  that  is  con- 
tained in  the  ecclesiastic  and  theological  expression.  The  sub- 
stance handled  in  the  present  doctrinal  controversy,  namely  that 
God  has  not  elected  according  to  His  mere  pleasure,  but  in  view 
of  Jesus  Christ's  merit  embraced  in  faith  —  is  taught  as  clearly 
and  plainly  in  the  passages  quoted,  as  the  real  presence  of  the 
body  and  the  blood  of  Christ  is  taught  in  the  texts  treating  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  For,  truly,  the  words:  "This  is  my  body, 
this  is  my  blood,"  do  not  more  plainly  express  the  "In,  with  and 
under,"  than  the  words:  "God  has  elected  us  in  Christ,  in  sanc- 
tification  of  the  Spirit  and  in  belief  of  the  truth  according  to  fore- 


748  A  Testhnony  Agabist  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

knowledge"  express  election  in  foresight  of  faith.  The  rejec- 
tion of  the  latter  doctrine  on  the  part  of  Missouri  is  therefore 
not  less  a  rejection  of  divine  truth,  than  the  rejection  of  the 
true  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  on  the  part  of  the 
Reformed.  Hence,  if  Missouri  asserts  that  the  Scriptures  know 
nothing  about  the  foresight  of  faith  as  the  basis  of  election,  and 
chat  the  doctrine,  that  God  first  foreknew  faith  and  then  appointed 
just  those  unto  salvation  whom  He  foreknew  as  believers,  con- 
tradicts clear  Scripture-teaching,  then  that  assertion  is  just  as 
little  true  as  when  the  Reformed  maintain  that  the  Scripture 
knows  nothing  of  the  true  presence  in  the  Holy  Supper  and  of 
an  oral  reception  of  the  body  and  the  blood.  And  as  little  as  a 
Lutheran  Christian  will  allow  himself  to  be  led  astray  by  the 
talk  of  the  Reformed  —  for  the  Lutheran  clings  to  the  simple 
word:  this  is  my  body,  this  is  my  blood ^ — so  little  will  a  sound 
Lutheran  Christian  permit  himself,  by  the  talk  of  Missouri,  to  be 
led  astray  regarding  the  truth  that  God  has  elected  in  view  of 
faith.  For  the  text:  "God  has  elected  in  Christ,  in  sanctification 
of  the  Spirit  and  in  belief  of  the  truth,  according  to  foreknowl- 
edge," is  "too  powerful,  and  cannot  be  torn  out  of  his  heart  and 
head  by  mere  words."  An  election  unto  faith,  according  to  a 
mere,  absolute  purpose,  an  election  that  picks  out  from  among 
the  mass  of  sinners,  all  alike,  certain  individuals  without  any  ref- 
erence to  faith  or  non-faith,  so  that  now  tliese  elect  "shall  and 
must"  come  unto  faith,  remain  in  faitli,  and  be  saved,  "and  besides 
them  none  else,"- — such  an  election  the  Scriptures  do  not  recog- 
nize. This  doctrine  of  election  does  not  only  contradict  the  clear 
scriptural  teaching  of  election,  by  impudently  and  flatly  denying 
the  truth  set  forth  in  the  texts  that  treat  of  election,  but  it  also 
fundamentally  overthrows  the  whole  Gospel.  Therefore,  for  the 
one  reason,  that  we  hold  firmly  to  the  clear  Word  of  God  and 
will  let  no  human  speculations  be  foisted  upon  us  as  God's  Word; 
and  above  all,  because  we  would  retain  the  comfort  of  the  Gos- 
pel,—  we  reject  with  our  fathers  this  Calvinizing  doctrine  of 
modern  Missouri,  and  we  hold  with  our  fathers,  on  the  strength 
of  the  divine  Word,  that  in  election  Christ's  merit  is  considered 
not  merely  as  obtained  for  us,  but  also  as  apprehended  by  us, 
that  God  has  elected  in  view  of  faith. 

As  the  doctrine,  that  God  has  elected  in  view  of  faith,  is 
clearly  and  plainly  declared  in  those  passages  of  Scripture  that 


Thesis   V.  749 

expressly  treat  of  election,  so  is  it  also  demanded  and  confirmed 
by  the  analogy  of  faith.  And  this  is  the  second  proof  that  we 
wish  to  adduce,  in  a  few  words.  By  the  analogy  of  faith  we 
understand  the  connexion,  the  agreement,  the  harmonious  rela- 
tion, in  which  the  articles  of  faith  stand  to  each  other.  God  has 
not  revealed  to  us  an  unconnected,  contradictory  faith.  The  dif- 
ferent articles  of  faith  are  not  like  a  variegated  quilt  that  is  patched 
together  out  of  different  stuffs  and  out  of  rags  representing  all 
possible  colors.  No;  the  different  articles  of  our  faith  are  all 
most  intimately  related  to  each  other  and  are  in  wonderful 
consonance  with  each  other.  They  are  like  a  work  of  art,  whose 
individual  parts  form  a  harmonious  whole.  The  apostle  writes  to 
this  effect,  Rom.  12,  6:  "Whether  prophecy,  let  us  prophesy 
according  to  the  proportion  of  faith."  In  thus  warning  us  most 
earnestly  against  would-be  interpretations  of  Scripture  which 
violate  the  unity  of  faith,  the  apostle  at  the  same  time  says  that 
all  articles  of  faith  really  agree,  the  one  with  the  other.  Every 
doctrine  purporting  to  be  of  scriptural  authority,  if  destructive 
of  this  connexion,  is  necessarily  a  false  doctrine,  even  if  one 
should  seek  to  prove  it  with  demonstrations  ever  so  glittering 
from  one  or  the  other  passage  of  Scripture,  or  from  so-called 
dogmas.  On  the  other  hand,  every  doctrine  that  is  not  only 
expressly  taught  in  passages  of  Scripture,  but  is  also  demanded 
and  confirmed  by  the  analogy  of  faith,  must  of  necessity  be  divine 
truth.  If  the  harmony  of  faith  demands  and  confirms  the  doc- 
trine, that  the  selection  and  appointment  of  those  persons  who 
shall  infallibly  be  saved  occurred  for  the  sake  of  Jesus  Christ's 
merit  apprehended  in  faith,  then  this  doctrine  must  be  the  truth, 
and  the  opposite  must  be  false  doctrine.  That  the  analogy  of  faith 
really  both  demands  and  confirms  this  doctrine  is  undeniable. 
If  we  question  the  Gospel  as  to  what  decides  the  justification 
and  the  salvation  of  one  sinner  in  preference  To  another,  we  find 
the  answer  recorded  upon  every  page  of  the  Sacred  Book :  Faith 
alone.  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  dammed."  —  "And  this  is  the  will 
of  Him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and 
believeth  on  Him,  may  have  everlasting  life."^ — "He  that  believ- 
eth on  Him  is  not  condemned:  but  he  that  believeth  not  is  con- 
demned already."  In  these  and  innumerable  passages  we  are 
most  plainly  informed  who  shall  be  saved  and  who  not.     God 


750  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctri?ie,  Etc. 

indeed,  as  the  Gospel  tells  us,  desires  the  salvation  of  all  men; 
is  as  earnest^  too,  in  this  desire  with  regard  to  the  one  as  with 
reg-ard  to  the  other.  His  love  embraces  all  with  equal  ardor. 
God  has  not,  at  the  outset,  preferred  any  one  or  overlooked 
any  one.  But  God,  as  the  Holy  One,  certainly  can  not  and  will 
not  under  any  and  every  condition  declare  sinners  to  be  His 
dear  children  and  save  them.  For  the  sake  of  divine  holiness 
and  righteousness  sin  had  first  to  be  expiated  by  making  a  suf- 
ficient ofifering,  and  a  perfect  righteousness  had  to  be  acquired, 
before  the  sinner's  forgiveness  and  salvation  could  be  granted; 
so  also  for  the  sake  of  the  same  holiness  and  righteousness  the 
acquired  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ  must  first  become  the 
sinner's  own  before  he  can  be  declared  just  before  God's  judg- 
ment bar  and  be  saved.  The  only  possible  means  of  appropri- 
ating the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  is  faith.  Therefore  God  in  His 
eternal  counsel  decreed  that  He  would  save  sinners  solely 
through  faith  in  His  Son  Jesus  Christ.  True,  God  Himself  must 
work  this  faith;  but  He  wants  to  create  it  in  all,  if  they  do  not 
render  His  work  impossible  by  wilful  resistance,  for  God  will 
certainly  use  no  force.  Although  He  ofifers  the  sinner  all  neces- 
sary power  in  order  to  believe.  He  still  allows  him  the  freedom 
of  wilfully  thrusting  His  grace  away;  and  those  who  do  so, 
God  can  not  justify  and  save,  however  willing  He  would  be  to 
save  them.  Though  Christ  has  died  for  them,  and  His  merit 
has  time  and  again  with  all  earnestness  been  offered  to  them  — 
as  long  as  they  do  not  actually  embrace  in  faith  Christ's  merit, 
they  stand  before  God  as  unrighteous,  still  therefore  under  the 
law  and  its  curse,  and  hence  can  not  be  justified  and  saved. 
What,  according  to  the  Gospel,  decides  that,  of  the  sinners  all 
alike  lost  in  Adam,  all  alike  redeemed  in  Christ,  a  certain  number 
is  chosen,  justified,  saved,  and  the  others,  not  chosen,  are  deliv- 
ered unto  destruction?  Not  a  man's  own  works  and  merits,  but 
just  as  little  an  unconditioned  purpose  of  the  free  pleasure  of 
God;  this  alone  has  decided:  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  appre- 
hended in  faith  —  nothing  else.  Therefore  the  Apology  says : 
"And  this  faith  makes  a  distinction  between  those  by  whom 
salvation  is  attained,  and  those  by  whom  it  is  not  attained.  Faith 
makes  the  distinction  between  the  worthy  and  the  unworthy, 
because  eternal  life  has  been  promised  to  the  justified;  and  faith 
justifies,  if  we  through  faith  grasp  the  promise"  (Muel.  p.  144). 


Thesis    V.  751 

Justified  and  saved  by  grace  alone,  for  Christ's  sake,  through 
faith  —  that  is  the  kernel  of  the  whole  Gospel.  This  is  the  fun- 
damental article  of  the  Christian  faith  and  upholds  the  entire 
system  of  Christian  doctrine  as  well  as  the  church  itself. 

What  follows  from  this  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  election? 
If  the  articles  of  faith  must  stand  in  agreement  with  each  other, 
if,  aboye  all,  they  must  be  in  accord  with  the  chief  and  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  the  doctrine  that  supports  every- 
thing else,  then  it  follows  necessarily  that  also  in  eternal  election 
God  took  into  account  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  apprehended  in 
faith,  that  He  elected  in  view  of  faith.  If  election  is  the  final 
and  unchangeable  decree  of  God,  in  which  He  has  drawn  a  sharp 
distinction  between  sinner  and  sinner,  and  has  once  for  all  set- 
tled who  shall  be  saved  and  who  not;  furthermore,  if  this  decision 
depends,  according  to  the  Gospel,  on  nothing  (whether  it  be 
human  merit  or  an  absolute  divine  decree)  but  faith,  i.  e.,  on  the 
apprehended  merit  of  Jesus  Christ;  moreover,  if  there  are  not 
two  different  contradictory  wills  of  God  respecting  salvation,  a 
revealed  will  and  a  hidden  will  —  then,  already  in  eternity,  Jesus 
Christ's  merit  apprehended  in  faith  must  hi.ve  decided  whether 
a  man  should  be  appointed  to  the  certain  attainment  of  salva- 
tion or  not,  and  what  men  should  be  thus  appointed.  God  must 
have  looked  into  the  future,  and  those,  whom  He  saw  among 
the  coming  sons  of  men  as  believing  through  the  power  of  His 
Word  and  as  sharing  in  the  merit  of  Christ,  He,  for  the  sake 
of  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  grasped  in  faith,  sundered  out  from 
the  mass  of  unbelievers  and  appointed  them  unto  salvation; 
whilst  all  the  others,  whose  persistent  unbelief  He  foresaw,  He 
rejected  on  account  of  their  unbelief.  Election  must  be  founded 
upon  Christ's  merit;  for  Christ's  merit  is  the  foundation  of  all 
salvation.  Here,  just  as  little  as  in  justification  and  salvation, 
can  Christ's  merit  be  considered  with  respect  to  its  acquirement 
alone.  For  we  speak  here  of  the  separation  of  certain  individuals 
from  the  mass  of  sinners,  as  well  as  of  an  appointment  of  these 
chosen  ones  to  the  infallible  attainment  of  salvation.  But  this 
separative  appointment  could  not  possibly  have  its  ground  in  the 
merit  of  Christ  considered  with  respect  to  its  acquisition  alone. 
Christ's  merit  has  been  acquired  for  all,  for  those  who  weep  in 
hell  no  less  than  for  those  who  rejoice  in  heaven.  If,  in  elec- 
tion, this  only  were  considered,  that  Christ  died  for  all,  then 
all  would  be  elected  and  all  would  be  saved.     But  now  not  all, 


752  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

only  a  few  of  the  redeemed  are  elected.  If  election  took  place 
for  Christ's  sake  just  as  well  as  the  justification  of  a  sinner  took 
place  for  Christ's  sake,  then,  as  in  justification,  so  in  election,, 
the  appropriation  of  Christ's  merit,  occurring  through  faith,  must 
have  been  taken  into  account.  As  in  justification  the  merit  of 
Jesus  Christ  accepted  in  faith  decided  who  should  be  justified,, 
so  also  in  eternal  election  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  accepted  in 
faith  decided  which  persons  should  be  saved  and  which  should 
not.  This  follows  necessarily  from  the  analogy  of  faith.  Thus 
the  doctrine  of  election  fits  harmoniously  into  the  whole  body 
of  the  articles  of  faith.  Thus  there  exists  not  the  slightest  con- 
tradiction between  this  doctrine  and  the  fundamental  doctrine 
of  the  Gospel:  "Out  of  grace,  for  Christ's  sake  through  faith." 
The  analogy  of  faith  demands  and  confiims  the  doctrine,  that 
God  has  elected  in  view  of  faith. 

But  how  about  the  doctrine  of  election  which  Missouri  at 
present  teaches?  Does  it  stand  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
chief  and  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Gospel?  Not  in  the  least; 
on  the  contrary,  it  contradicts  this  doctrine  directly.  For  what 
does  Missouri  teach?  She  teaches  —  to  repeat  once  more  and 
briefly  —  the  following:  "Predestination  (election)  is  the  actual 
and  eternal  separation  of  certain  individuals  from  the  multitude 
of  those  who  are  not  to  be  saved"  ("L.  u.  W.,"  24,  p.  353).  This- 
separation  is  not  founded  upon  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  accepted 
in  faith,  is  not  accomplished  according  to  the  rule:  He  that 
believeth  shall  be  saved,  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned, 
but  is  wholly  independent  of  this  appropriation  of  Christ's  merit. 
From  the  multitude  of  men,  all  alike  in  unbelief  and  under  the 
curse  of  the  Law,  God  separates  certain  persons  who  most  cer- 
tainly shall  and  must  be  saved,  others  He  leaves  behind,  although 
He  could  have  elected  and  saved  these  just  as  easily  as  the  rest. 
God  indeed  gives  to  all  men  a  certain  grace;  but  for  the  elect 
He  has  provided  a  "more  abundant"  grace.  While,  therefore, 
the  non-elect  may  despise  their  call,  God  necessarily  carries  out 
His  will  in  the  case  of  the  elect,  in  that  He  overcomes  the  most 
wilful  resistance,  so  that  they  must  come  to  faith.  While  also 
many  non-elect  temporarily  believe,  but  lose  their  faith  again,, 
the  elect  must  persevere  in  faith,  must,  in  case  they  for  a  time 
fall  away,  become  repentant  again  by  virtue  of  the  grace  of  elec- 
tion. While  eternal  life  is  promised  to  all  believers  on  condition 
that  they  persevere,  perseverance  and  salvation  are  guaranteed 


Thesis    V.  753 

for  the  elect  by  virtue  of  their  election.  Why  God  acts  differently 
in  these  two  instances,  and  according  to  what  rule  He  acts,  is- 
hidden  from  us;  only  this  is  certain,  that  the  merit  of  Christ 
accepted  in  faith,  has  not  been  the  rule.  The  work  of  election 
has  been  done  without  any  regard  to  man's  conduct;  it  is  based 
only  upon  the  secret  will  of  God.  The  Minutes  of  '77  say:  "If 
we  were  to  say  to  our  God:  Why  hast  Thou  elected  me?  He 
would  answer:  Because  I  so  willed.  If  we  would  ask  further: 
Why  didst  Thou  will  it?  He  would  reply:  It  was  even  the  pleas- 
ure of  my  will"  (p.  26).  In  the  Minutes  of  '79  we  read:  "If  God 
grants  the  grace  of  perseverance  to  the  elect,  the  non-elect  have 
no  right  to  accuse  God  for  not  bestowing  on  them  this  rich 
measure  of  grace;  for  God  does  not  owe  us  a  special,  greater 
measure  of  this  grace.  To  him  that  would  thus  complain,  God 
would  speak  this  word  of  Scripture:  'Have  T  not  power  to  do 
with  My  own  what  I  will?'  —  Parents  act  in  a  similar  manner. 
Sometimes  a  parent  is  more  kind  to  one  child  than  to  another, 
because  the  one  is  more  obedient  and  gives  more  joy  than  the 
other;  to  the  latter  the  parent  gives  food  and  drink  and  tries  in 
various  ways  to  please  it;  but  to  the  former  the  parent  manifests, 
in  this  or  in  that  direction,  more  love  than  to  the  latter.  Even 
so  does  God  deal  with  us;  only.  He  does  not  even  ask  whether 
we  have  followed  Him  or  not;  but  He  acts  as  He  pleases"  (p.  38). 
What?  Does  this  doctrine  of  Missouri  agree  with  the  plan 
of  salvation  revealed  in  the  Gospel?  Does  it  not  rather  con- 
tradict the  Gospel  directly?  The  Gospel  says:  Faith  alone  — 
nothing  else  —  decides  whether  a  man  will  be  saved,  for  without 
faith  man  is  outside  of  Christ  and  still  remains  under  the  curse. 
God  can  not  save  him  in  an  unbelieving  state.  Only  where 
there  is  forgiveness  of  sin,  are  life  and  salvation.  Man  has  for- 
giveness of  sin  only  when  he  embraces  in  faith  the  merit  of 
Christ.  Therefore  man  must  first  have  attained  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  through  faith,  before  God  can  save  him.  The  Gospel 
teaches  this.  And  what  does  the  Missourian  doctrine  of  election 
teach?  It  says:  Not  faith,  but  only  the  free  pleasure  of  God 
has  finally  decided  the  question,  what  sinners  rather  than  others 
shall  be  saved.  When  God  saw  them  all  lying  in  the  same  ruin, 
in  the  same  unbelief,  He  chose,  according  to  His  free  pur- 
pose, whom  He  would,  and  promised  them  eternal  life  as  an 
inalienable  possession.  He  did  not  at  all  inquire  concerning 
the  apprehended  merit  of  Jesus  Christ;  this  did  not  at  all  decide. 


754        _  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

■but  only  the  free  pleasure  of  God.  God  did  not  make  any  inquiry 
■concerning  faith,  but  only  followed  His  own  will.  Truly,  that 
is  not  the  old  gospel  which  prophets  and  apostles  preached,  but 
a  new  one,  wholly  different  —  a  cancellation  of  the  entire  Gospel. 
This  becomes  still  clearer,  when  we  consider  what  the  word 
choose,  or  elect  really  means.  To  elect  means  simply  to  take 
out  of  a  number  of  people  certain  persons  whom  one  prefers, 
to  do  this  for  an  appointed  purpose,  and  to  abandon  the  rest. 
A  selection,  where  all  are  taken,  where  a  few  at  least  are  not 
left,  would  be  no  selection.  We  must  not  lepresent  the  matter 
as  though  one  first  of  all  picks  out  which  he  wills  without  any 
reference  to  the  rest,  and,  when  this  has  been  done,  for  some 
reason  or  other  passes  by  the  rest.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  act 
of  choosing  certain  persons,  the  rest  are  passed  by.  The  choos- 
ing of  the  one  is  the  abandoning  of  the  other.  The  very  thing 
which  constitutes  the  act  of  election,  is  this,  that  certain  indi- 
viduals are  chosen  for  a  certain  purpose  and  the  rest  are  omitted. 
Thence  follows  also  that  one  and  the  same  law  must  decide  the 
•choosing  and  the  not-choosing.  Because  this  constitutes  elec- 
tion, that  I  take  some  whom  I  prefer,  and  omit  others  whom 
I  will  not  have,  I  can  not  choose  according  to  one  rule  and 
•omit  to  choose  according  to  another  rule,  but  with  regard  to 
both  one  and  the  same  rule  must  decide.  At  the  last  day  Christ 
the  Lord  will  make  a  strict  difiference  between  those  who  shall 
be  saved  and  those  that  shall  not  be  saved.  He  there  chooses, 
.as  He  has  the  right  to  do,  a  number  of  persons  out  of  the  mass 
of  humanity,  and  in  doing  so  excludes  the  others  from  this  elec- 
tion. And  this  takes  place  according  to  one  and  the  same  rule. 
Belief  and  unbelief  decide.  Where  He  finds  faith,  He  saves: 
where  He  finds  unbelief.  He  rejects.  But  if  the  judge  of  the  world 
would  at  the  last  day  make  no  inquiry  concerning  faith,  if  the 
•apprehended  merit  of  Christ  would  not  decide  who  are  to  be 
saved,  but  only  the  free  purpose  of  a  hidden  will;  then  the  unbe- 
lief of  the  others  would  not  be  the  cause  of  their  rejection,  but 
ithis  rejection  would  be  based  on  the  free  pleasure  of  God,  who 
without  inquiring  about  anything,  accepts  whom  He  wills  and 
rejects  whom  He  wills.  The  same  thing  is  true  in  the  eternal 
■decree  of  election  with  respect  to  certain  individuals,  which  is 
nothing  but  the  judgment  in  eternity.  There  also  the  same  law 
must  have  decided  the  acceptance  and  the  non-acceptance.  If  God 
•did  not  take  faith  into  account,  then  He  did  not  take  unbelief  into 


Thesis    V.  755 

account.  If  the  free  pleasure  of  the  divine  will  alone  settled  the 
question,  which  sinners  shall  infallibly  be  saved,  then  also  this 
divine  free  pleasure  alone  decided  which  shall  not  be  saved. 
The  former,  as  well  as  the  latter,  were  unbelievers  —  and  yet 
as  such  they  were  elected.  If  ni  their  case  unbelief  was  no 
hindrance  to  election,  then  in  the  case  of  the  non-elect  unbelief 
could  not  have  hindered  election.  Had  God  elected  them,  their 
unbelief  would  have  melted  away  as  the  srow  melts  beneath 
the  sun's  warmth.  Why  God  has  not  elected  them  is  a  hidden 
mystery  of  His  will.  As  election,  so  non-election  is  based  on 
the  secret  hidden  purpose  of  the  divine  will.  Between  accept- 
ance and  rejection  the  decision  is  rendered  by  the  sovereign  pleas- 
ure of  the  divine  will  alone.  When  Missouri  rejects  election 
in  view  of  faith  and  teaches  us  an  election,  according  to  God's 
free  pleasure,  an  election  of  unbelievers,  she  puts  the  cause  of 
the  non-election  and  final  destruction  of  so  many  —  for  only  the 
elect  shall  and  must  be  saved,  and  beside  them  none  else  —  in 
the  secret  will  of  God.  That  such  a  doctrine  is  in  open  contra- 
diction to  the  Gospel,  one  does  not  need  to  prove  to  a  Lutheran 
Christian.  True,  Missouri  as  a  whole  has  not  yet  expressly  and 
openly  advanced  the  statement,  that  non-election  also  is  based 
on  God's  secret  will;  but  this  proposition  is  the  necessary  con- 
clusion of  the  doctrine  that  God  has  elected  according  to  His 
mere  pleasure  without  foresight  of  faith.  By  such  a  doctrine  the 
tniversal  gracious  will  of  God,  even  if  one  does  not  in  so  many 
words  say  it,  is  really  undermined  and  overthrown,  yea,  is  made 
a  lie.  For  if  God,  as  Missouri  says,  actually  picked  out  from 
among  the  mass  of  humanity  all  alike  in  sin,  a  certain  number 
for  Himself,  and  resolved  through  the  bestowal  of  a  richer  meas- 
ure of  grace  to  bring  them  to  faith,  to  preserve  them  therein  and 
to  save  them  and  none  else,  although  He  could  just  as  easily  have 
saved  the  rest;  then  the  revealed  will  of  grace  is  a  mere  pretence. 
And  if  God's  mere  pleasure  decides  who  shall  be  saved  and 
who  shall  not,  then  wilful  resistance,  since  God  removes  this 
in  tlie  case  of  the  elect,  is  not  the  cause  of  non-election,  but  the 
cause  is  found  in  God's  will.  One  may  call  these  the  deductions 
of  reason,  but  that  does  not  in  the  least  change  the  matter.  These 
are  necessary  conclusions  from  the  teaching  of  Missouri.  In 
necessary  conclusions  the  subject  itself  appears.  If  the  neces- 
sary consequences  of  a  certain  doctrine  are  false,  then  the  doc- 
trine itself  is  necessarily  false.     From  the  proposition:    God  has, 


756  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

without  any  regard  to  faith,  but  merely  according  to  His  free 
pleasure,  appointed  a  certain  number  of  persons  to  salvation  and 
has  omitted  others,  this  necessarily  follows:  God  has,  without 
any  regard  to  their  unbelief,  merely  according  to  His  free  pleas- 
ure, passed  over  a  great  number  of  men  and  has  not  given 
them  the  grace  of  election  which  decides  everything.  Thus, 
behind  the  universal  gracious  will  there  stands  still  another  will, 
the  will  of  election,  referring  from  the  very  outset  to  a  few 
only.  These  are  the  necessary  consec|uences  of  the  Missourian 
doctrine  of  election,  and  they  have  already,  in  part,  been  drawn 
by  some.  But  for  this  reason  the  Missourian  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion is  necessarily  a  false  doctrine,  an  open  contradiction  of  the 
Gospel  —  a  cancellation  of  the  entire  Gospel. 

All  this  is  not  in  the  least  changed  by  saying:  we  do  not 
exclude  faith  from  election,  we  teach  that  God  has  elected  nobody 
whom  He  has  not  elected  unto  faith;  He  has  resolved  to  elect 
through  faith.  The  Missourian  doctrine  of  election  is  not  freed 
by  these  and  similar  remarks  from  its  opposition  to  the  Gospel, 
even  if  some  are  thus  deceived,  for  this  is  saying  no  more  than  the 
Calvinists  have  always  said.  In  that  sense  no  one,  not  even  the 
grossest  Calvinist,  has  excluded  faith  from  election.  The  Calvin- 
ists have  always  said  that  God  would  save  His  elect  through  faith 
only;  therefore  He  elected  and  appointed  them  to  faith  also. 
They  allowed  faith  a  place  in  the  decree  of  election  in  so  far 
as  the  object  and  effect  of  election  were  considered.  What  they 
rejected  was,  that  God  in  election  itself  had  any  regard  to  faith; 
just  so  Missouri.  But  just  as  certainly  as  the  Calvinists  taught 
an  absolute,  unconditioned  election,  dependent  only  on  God's 
will,  notwithstanding  that  they  allowed  faith  to  be  at  the  same 
time  an  appointed  means  for  the  execution  of  election;  so  cer- 
tainly Missouri  also  teaches  an  unconditioned  election,  however 
much  she  may  assure  us  that  God  has  resolved  to  save  the  elect 
through  faith.  Just  as  do  the  Calvinists,  so  also  Missouri  takes 
faith  into  account  only  as  a  means  of  carrying  out  the  decree 
of  election.  But  that  is  not  at  all  the  question  about  which  we 
are  here  concerned.  The  question  is  this:  Was  regard  had  to 
faith  in  election  itself?  has  faith,  has  the  appropriation  of  Christ's 
merit  something  to  do  with  the  separation  itself  of  individuals? 
Did  election  occur  in  view  of  the  merit  of  Christ  and  of  true 
faith  in  Christ  so  that  God  elected  those  whom  He  did  elect 
because  He  saw  from  eternity  that  they  through  His  grace  would 


Thesis    V.  757 

"believe  in  Christ?  and  did  He  reject  the  others  because  He  fore- 
saw their  wilful,  persevering  resistance?  Or  did  God  out  of 
a  mere  free  purpose  elect  certain  ones  and  resolve  to  give  them 
faith,  but  reject  the  others  and  omit  the  resolve  to  give  them 
faith?  That  is  the  question  under  discussion.  And  in  answer 
to  this  question  Missouri  says  with  the  Calvinists:  No,  the  elec- 
tion of  individuals  did  not  occur  in  view  of  faith.  The  appropri- 
ation of  Christ's  merit  did  not  decide  the  question,  who  should 
infallibly  be  saved;  but  only  God's  free  pleasure  determined  the 
matter.  As  the  Lord  of  all,  who  can  do  what  He  wills,  God  has 
chosen  out  a  number  of  persons  for  Himself,  whom  He  would, 
and  has  appointed  these  in  preference  to  the  rest  unto  faith,  and 
in  such  a  manner  that  they  must  come  to  faith  and  must  through 
faith  be  saved.  According  to  Missourian  teaching  faith  is  in- 
cluded in  election  somewhat  as  good  works  are  included  in  justi- 
fication. As  these  have  no  place  in  justification,  when  the  ques- 
tion is  as  to  what  sinner  shall  be  justified  in  preference  to  others — 
for  faith  alone  decides  that  —  (although  the  justified  are  certainly 
appointed  to  live,  not  in  sins,  but  in  sanctification) ;  so  also 
in  election  faith  has  no  decisive  voice  whatever  when  the  ques- 
tion is,  what  sinners  in  preference  to  others  shall  be  appointed 
unto  eternal  life,  its  bearing  being  restricted  to  this  that  the 
•elect  are  appointed  to  be  saved  through  faith  alone.  But  as 
the  works  following  justification  really  have  nothing  to  do  with 
justification  itself,  but  are  only  its  necessary  fruit  and  efifect:  so 
also  faith,  according  to  Missourian  teaching,  has  nothing  to  do 
in  election  itself,  but  is  only  the  fruit  and  efifect  of  election.  And 
it  is  a  deceitful  diversion  when  Missouri  claims  also  to  teach  an 
■election  through  faith.  No;  Missouri  does  not  teach  that.  She 
teaches  with  the  Calvinists  an  election  according  to  God's  free 
pleasure  without  regard  to  faith,  an  election  unto  faith,  not  in 
faith.  In  contradiction  to  the  Gospel  Missouri  dismisses  faith 
from  election  proper;  for  her,  as  for  the  Calvinists,  faith  is  only 
the  means  for  executing  the  unconditioned  decree  of  election. 
If  the  Missourian  doctrine  of  election  were  the  truth,  no 
preacher  could  say  to  his  hearers:  "Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  you  shall  be  saved:  your  salvation  depends  on  whether  you 
believe."  For  then  there  would  be,  in  addition  to  the  revealed 
gracious  will,  still  an  altogether  diflferent  will  of  God.  And 
whilst  the  revealed  will  promises  to  all  salvation  on  the  condition 
of  faith,  God  the  Lord  would,  in  His  secret  will,  have  appointed 


758  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

unconditionally  only  a  certain  few  from  the  mass  of  humanity, 
all  alike  in  sin,  unto  faith  and  salvation.  These  only  would  come 
to  faith,  at  least  to  persevering  faith,  and  would  be  brought  thereto 
by  virtue  of  the  mystery  of  election  impending  over  them,  the 
others  would  not  be  brought  thereto,  because  they  were  not 
elected.  It  was  not  the  revealed  will  of  grace  that  saved,  but 
only  the  secret  will  of  election,  which  unconditionally  selected 
certain  persons  and  in  the  case  of  these  necessarily  accomplished 
its  purpose.  Beside  these  none  could  and  should  be  saved. 
Then,  however,  this  secret  will  alone  would  be  decisive,  on  it 
alone  would  depend  whether  a  man  should  be  saved  or  not. 
How  could  I  as  a  preacher,  according  to  Missourian  teaching 
direct  my  hearers  to  the  revealed  will,  since,  in  obedience  to  this 
type  of  teaching,  I  should  still  be  forced  to  say:  "Indeed,  behind 
this  revealed  will  there  is  still  another,  and  this  latter  is  not 
for  all,  is  not  executed  according  to  the  rule  of  the  revealed 
Gospel,  but  according  to  hidden  reasons,  and  this  is  really  the 
only  decisive  will  —  the  will  that  decides  everything.  —  We  can 
point  our  people  to  the  revealed  will;  for  according  to  our  teach- 
ing there  is  but  one  saving  will  of  God,  and  that  is  the  one  revealed 
in  the  Gospel.  A  Missouri  preacher,  however,  who  really  under- 
stands his  doctrine,  can  not  do  this.  He  can  really  say  only  this: 
You  are  one  of  those  whom  God  has  elected,  or:  You  are  not 
one  of  them.  When  a  Missouri  pastor  absolves  a  man,  and  the 
man  asks:  "Will  I  certainly  be  saved?"  according  to  Missourian 
doctrine  he  must  answer:  "Yes,  if  you  are  elected,  not  other- 
wise." A  true  Lutheran  pastor  on  the  other  hand  would  answer 
him:  "Yes,  if  you  believe  —  and  that  you  can  know  —  you  will 
certainly  be  saved."  And  he  can  say  this  to  all  alike.  Accord- 
ing to  Missourian  teaching  he  could  not  do  so.  He  would  have 
to  say:  "If  you  are  not  elected,  I  can  not  help  you,  nor  can  God's 
Word  —  and  God  does  not  want  to  help  you.  If  you  are  elected, 
yes  —  then  there  is  help  for  you."  But  who  will  tell  a  distressed 
person  with  absolute  certainty  whether  he  is  elected  or  not? 
Yet  if  one  cannot  absolutely  assure  him  of  this,  how  shall  one 
comfort  him?  —  We  can,  it  is  true,  give  him  no  sign  and  seal 
that  God  in  eternity  has  irrevocably  appointed  him  to  salvation; 
but  in  our  doctrine  this  is  not  necessary,  for,  according  to  our 
teaching,  there  is  no  other  saving  will  of  God  besides  the  one 
revealed  in  the  Gospel;    accordingly  the  revealed  saving  will  is 


Thesis    V.  759 

also  the  will  of  election,  since  from  the  beginning-  this  is  for  all, 
and  is  accomplished  according  to  one  and  the  same  rule.  We 
can,  therefore,  confidently  say  to  troubled  hearts:  "Behold,  here 
is  the  Gospel,  here  is  your  baptism,  here  the  absolution,  here 
the  Holy  Supper:  believe  these,  and  you  will  infallibly  be  saved. 
God  Himself  has  promised  this  to  you  in  His  Word  and  He  will 
also  faithfully  keep  this  promise;  He  will  not  lie,  God's  will  is 
here  revealed  to  you,  and  behind  this  will  there  is  no  other.  Mis- 
souri pastors  indeed  still  continue  to  preach  in  the  same  way; 
but  by  so  doing  they  really  deny  their  doctrine  of  election,  yea, 
they  condemn  themselves.  They  may  direct  their  hearers  ever 
so  much  and  ever  so  often  to  the  universal  gracious  will,  but  if 
the  hearers  have  really  comprehended  Missouri's  doctrine  of 
election,  they  will  not  be  able  to  free  themselves  of  the  thought: 
"Yes,  that  is  all  very  beautiful;  but  behind  this  revealed  will  of 
God  there  is  yet  a  hidden  wall,  altogether  different  from  the  other, 
intended  for  a  few  only,  absolutely  accompfishing  its  purpose, 
and  this  alone  decides  everything.  If  I  am  not  appointed  to 
salvation  according  to  this  secret  will  of  election,  T  may  hear 
God's  Word  with  ever  so  much  diligence,  be  absolved,  go  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  everything  —  everything  is  in  vain.'  "  Such 
thoughts,  according  to  Missouri's  teaching,  can  not  fail  to  appear. 
For  if  there  is  really  such  a  secret,  all-deciding  will  of  election, 
altogether  differing  from  the  universal  gracious  will  —  what  does 
it  help  us  to  close  our  eyes  against  it!  You  may  seek  to  cover 
it  ever  so  carefully  with  the  veil  of  mystery,  if  you  do  not  want 
to  deceive  yourself,  you  will  never  find  rest  in  this  doctrine. 
Men  carnally  secure  may  indeed  content  themselves.  Enthusi- 
asts may  imagine  that  they  must  certainly  be  the  favored  ones 
picked  out  according  to  the  concealed  will;  but  sober  Christians, 
really  desirous  of  salvation,  must  fall  into  doubt,  if  they  have 
rightly  grasped  this  doctrine.  Missouri  claims  to  make  men 
quite  certain  of  their  salvation  by  her  doctrine  of  election,  but 
in  fact  she  thereby  robs  the  Christian  of  all  comfort.  Despair 
or  security,  these  are  the  fruits  of  the  Missourian  election  doc- 
trine. But  this  characterizes  it  sufficiently  as  a  false  doctrine, 
opposed  to  the  Gospel. 


APPENDIX. 


The  undersigned  endeavors  to  present  herewith,  in  com- 
pliance with  the  desire  of  some  of  his  brethren,  a  short  history  of 
the  present  controversy.  In  furnishing  the  accompanying  state- 
ment, the  writer  considers  it  necessary  to  answer  first  of  all  the 
question :  Which  of  the  two  now  opposing  doctrines  was  formerly 
the  doctrine  of  the  Missouri  Synod?  Which  of  the  two  parties 
has  departed  from  its  former  position  and  has  sought  tO'  introduce 
something  new?  This  question  might  seem  superfluous;  for  even 
if  the  synod  referred  to  formerly  held  the  doctrine  which  she  now 
rejects,  and  which  we  defend,  this  would  not  prove  that  we,  in 
our  present  opposition,  are  right.  It  might  be  that  all  of  us  were 
formerly  alike  in  error.  In  that  case  it  would  be  entirely  right 
for  the  Missouri  Synod  tO'  renounce  its  error,  and  on  our  part  it 
would  be  wrong  to  oppose  such  a  step.  The  principal  question 
is  and  always  remains  this:  Which  side  has  the  divine  truth  now? 
Yes,  that  is  and  remains  the  great  question.  Those  of  Missouri, 
however,  declare  with  great  emphasis  that  they  ever  held  the 
doctrine  which  they  now  hold.  Dr.  Walther  calls  the  assertion, 
that  they  formerly  taught  a  different  doctrine  of  election  from 
that  which  they  teach  at  present,  a  "gross  falsehood,"  which  has 
been  "spread  from  a  certain  quarter."  Dr.  W.  says  this  with 
especial  reference  to  himself.  In  Chicago,  however,  he  denied 
just  as  emphatically,  that  the  doctrine  of  an  election  in  foresight 
of  faith  had  been  the  teaching  of  the  Synod,  consequently,  this  is 
what  he  refers  to  as  a  gross  falsehood.  From  the  beginning  he 
has  been  very  liberal  in  charging  others  with  "lies,"  "falsehoods," 
etc.  Let  us  see  on  which  side  the  "lie"  and  the  "falsehood"  are 
in  the  present  case. 

In  the  "Lutheraner"  of  the  year  1846,  p.  93,  we  find  a  com- 
munication from  the  pen  of  Pastor  Schieferdecker,  in  which  the 
following  is  presented  as  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election: 

That  God  "according  to  an  unconditional  decree  elected 
some  to  life  and  condemned  some  to  death,  in  which  decree  the 
conduct  of  men,  and  also  faith,  was  in  no  wise  taken  into  account.'' 

(760) 


Appendix.  761 

This  is  what  the  "Lutheraner"  at  that  time  called  Calvinistic. 
We  still  call  it  so. 

In  "Lehre  und  Wehre,"  1855,  p.  234,  we  find  theses  on  the 
doctrine  of  election  by  Dr.  Sihler.  The  first  of  these  reads: 
"Election  is  an  act  of  God,  wherein,  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  in  eternity.  He  resolved  according  to  the  purpose  of  His 
will,  for  Christ's  sake,  and  for  the  praise  of  His  glorious  grace, 
to  save  eternally  all  those  whose  persevering  faith  in  Christ  He 
foresaw." 

Dr.  Sihler  has  now,  alas,  retracted  this  thesis;  see  "Lehre 
und  Wehre,"  1881,  p.  58.  But  this  retraction  is  an  irrefutable 
proof  that  these  gentlemen  now  occupy  a  different  position  from 
that  of  25  years  ago. 

"Lehre  und  Wehre,"  1856,  contains  a  very  long  article  by 
President  Fiirbringer.  Here,  for  example,  we  read:  "Before 
time  began  God  decreed  to  save  through  Christ  Jesus,  His  Son, 
those  who  were  lost  and  condemned  through  Adam's  fall.  And 
inasmuch  as  it  was  not  hidden  from  Him,  whose  eyes  saw  us 
before  He  made  us,  which  persons  would  acknowledge  His  Sa- 
vior and  believe  in  Him  to  the  end,  He  resolved  to  bring  them 
into  an  existence  in  which  His  gracious  will  should  be  glorified 
in  them..  But  if  God  (who  so  determined,  and  who  foreknew 
because  He  had  resolved  to  impart)  foreknew  them  as  creatures 
who  would  be  saved  through  faith,  He  thereby  also  predestinated 
them,  as  persons  who  will  not  be  cast  away,  in  whom  the  counsel 
■of  salvation  will  be  realized,  unto  the  attainment  of  everything 
necessary  for  salvation;  and  these  are  therefore  called  according 
to  the  purpose.     Rom.  8,  28,"  etc. 

This  quotation  shows  in  what  respect  one  may  speak  in  an 
■entirely  orthodox  manner  of  a  predestination  "unto  the  attain- 
ment of  everything  necessary  for  salvation.  The  foresight  of 
persevering  faith  was  most  clearly  presupposed.  We  have 
already  seen  that  Dr.  W.  makes  essentially  the  same  explanation 
in  his  Postil. 

Pres.  Fiirbringer  continues,  p.  321:  "We  are  quite  logically 
forced  by  the  foregoing  remarks  to  the  question:  Is  the  eternal 
election  of  God  a  cause  of  the  salvation  to  believers  so  that  this 
election,  first  of  all,  creates  faith?  We  must  first  of  all  hold  fast 
that  election,  to  begin  with,  is  not  the  foundation,  nor  the  means, 
nor  the  condition  of  salvation;  for  these  are  Christ,  His  Gospel, 


762  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

and  the  faith  it  works.  In  the  second  place,  election  is  also  not 
the  cause  of  our  faith  so  that  faith  would  be  the  effect  of  election; 
for  the  Word  works  faith.  But  because  God's  election  ap- 
points or  ordains  beforehand  unto  salvation  His  own,  whom  He 
knows,  therefore  it  is  indeed  the  cause  that  works  their  salvation 
in  so  far,  as  all  things  in  the  time  of  grace  must  arrange  them- 
selves accordingly  and  serve  for  this  end.  It  is  the  cause  work- 
ing to  the  end  that  foreseen  faith,  and  all  that  flows  from  faith, 
attain  reality  by  means  of  the  Word  coming  to  us  and  experienced 
efiticaciously  by  all  who  hear  it.  This  is  the  point  of  difiference 
which  separates  the  pure  doctrine  from  the  Reformed-particular- 
istic doctrine;  namely  that  the  power  of  the  divine  Word  for  con- 
version and  regeneration  does  not  require  predestination  as  a 
presupposition,"  etc. 

Faith,  then,  is  not  the  effect  of  election;  for  the  power  of  the 
divine  Word  to  convert  men  does  not  rest  upon  predestination 
as  a  presupposition,  i.  e.,  does  not  flow  from  it,  as  Missouri  now 
maintains,  declaring  us  to  be  synergists  because  we  deny  it.  Pres. 
F.,  however,  tells  us  that  this  is  the  very  point  of  difference  be- 
tween Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  doctrine.  He  has,  therefore,  in 
advance  declared  the  present  doctrine  of  Missouri  to  be  Reformed- 
particularistic,  i.  e.,  Calvinistic!  And  everybody  knows  that  we 
make  the  same  declaration  still.  Whether  Pres.  F.  has  hit  the 
exact  sense  of  §  8,  Art.  XI,  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  is  another 
question.  For  there  election  is  not  called  a  cause  of  our  salva- 
tion and  of  what  pertains  thereto  ''in  so  far,"  etc.,  but  it  is  simply 
termed  a  cause.  He  has  also  overlooked  the  fact,  that  the  Form. 
Cone,  embraces  in  the  idea  of  "Election  or  predestination,"  "i.  e. 
God's  appointment  to  salvation,"  eight  eternal  decrees,  in  the  first 
seven  of  which  God  "decreed"  salvation  itself  and  "what  pertains 
thereto,"  but  in  the  eighth,  "that  those  whom  He  has  elected, 
called  and  justified"  He  would  also  save.  If,  as  does  the  Form. 
Cone,  we  understand  by  "Election  or  Predestination,  i:  e.  by 
God's  appointment  unto  salvation,"  both  the  appointment  of  the 
whole  salvation  and  the  appointment  of  the  persons  who  really 
obtain  salvation,  then  we  can,  yea  we  must  without  limitation 
say,  this  election,  this  appointment  of  God  is  a  cause,  and  we  dare 
not  limit  the  word  cause  by  "in  so  far,"  as  Pres.  F.  does.  Still 
less  dare  we,  as  Dr.  W.  does,  call  election  a  cause,  namely  one 
beside  other  causes,  viz.  Christ,  God's  grace,  etc.     This  subter- 


Appendix.  763 

fug-e  of  Dr.  W.'s  is,  evidently  so  unchristian  that  it  is  inconceivable 
how  he  could  so  speak.  A  cause  of  our  salvation  besides  Christ, 
besides  God's  grace!!  This  gross  distortion  of  §  8  is  shown  to 
be  such,  beyond  a  doubt,  by  language  used  in  the  paragraph. 
Election  is,  "from  the  gracious  will  and  pleasure  of  God  in  Christ 
Jesus,  a  cause."  The  Latin  text  likewise  shows  that  the  words 
"a  cause"  are  not  to  mean  "a  cause  beside  others";  also  by  election 
"causa  est,  quae,"  etc.  According  to  Dr.  W.'s  interpretation  it 
would  have  to  read:  una  causarum,  one  of  the  causes,  or  causa 
aliqua.  In  Acts  2,  36,  we  read:  Dass  Gott  diesen  Jesum  zu 
"einem  Herrn  und  Christ  gemacht  hat."  According  to  Dr.  W.'s 
exegesis  that  would  have  to  read:  "zu  einem  Herrn  und  Christ, 
namlich  neben  andern  Herren  und  Christussen."  This  is  the 
way  in  which  the  gentlemen  in  St.  Louis  handle  the  words  of  the 
Confessions,  and  then  call  all  those  apostate  who  do  not  consent 
to  such  work!  If  only  we  pay  attention  to  all  that  the  Form. 
Cone,  embraces  in  this  "appointment  of  God  unto  salvation,  we 
can  and  must  say  with  the  Form.:  This  appointment  is  a  cause 
of  our  salvation  and  of  what  pertains  thereto,  also  of  faith, 
for  it  constitutes  the  summary  of  all  causes  and  all  means,  as  the 
eight  decrees  show. 

If,  however,  we  speak,  as  do  our  dogmaticians  and  as  Pres. 
Fiirbringer  evidently  does,  only  of  the  eighth  decree,  the  final 
appointment  of  individuals  to  eternal  life,  then  we  cannot  and 
dare  not  say  that  predestination  is  a  cause  of  faith;  for,  as  Pres. 
F.  rightly  says:  "The  Word  creates  faith;"  and  the  Word  is 
treated  in  the  second  and  third  decrees,  not  in  the  eighth.  The 
eighth  presupposes  the  Word,  justification  (and  thus  also  faith), 
as  is  clearly  shown  by  the  words:  "Those  whom  He  has  elected, 
called  and  justified,"  etc.  Furthermore,  when  we,  as  do  the  dog- 
maticians and  Pres.  F.,  speak  of  the  predestination  of  persons, 
that  is  of  the  eighth  decree  alone,  we  dare  not  say:  "The  power 
of  the  Word  presupposes  predestination;"  then  we  must  say  with 
Pres.  F.  that  it  is  Reformed-particularistic  (Calvinizing)  doctrine 
to  teach:  Election  is  a  "cause  of  our  faith,  in  so  far  as  faith  is 
an  effect  of  election."  The  eighth  decree  presupposes  all  the 
others;  they  do  not  presuppose  it;  as  the  St.  Louis  men  have 
already  expressly  declared,  that  we  must  conceive  of  the  election 
of  individuals  as  belonging  between  the  first  and  the  second 
decree! 


764  A  Testimony  Agai?ist  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

Well,  Pres.  F.  speaks  of  election  in  the  sense  of  the  dogma- 
ticians,  and  firmly  holds  that  election  occurred  in  view  of  faith. 
That  this  agrees  with  the  Form,  of  Cone,  he  proves  as  follows: 
"From  all  this  we  conclude  at  least  that  believers  also  were  or- 
dained as  such  from  eternity  and  in  consideration  of  their  fore- 
known persevering  faith  were  elected,  not  because  they  believe, 
but  in  view  of  faith;  certainly,  however,  on  account  of  the  divine 
mercy  and  the  merit  of  Christ,  whose  expiatory  death  dare  not  be 
limited  bv  election,  being  in  reality  the  ground  o^ election.  There- 
fore the  C.  F.  rightly  says:  'And  in  so  far  a  Christian  should 
appropriate  the  article  of  God's  eternal  election.  .  .  .  Who 
has  resolved  in  His  eternal  plan  that  He  will  save  none  except 
those  that  acknowledge  His  Christ  and  truly  believe  in  Him.' 
The  Form.  Cone,  draws  its  election  from  the  purpose  to  save 
only  those  wdio  perseveringly  believe;  but  this  connecting  of  the 
two  is  conceivable  only  as  being  brought  about  by  foreknowl- 
edge, in  so  far  as  God,  who  would  by  all  means  bestow  His  sal- 
vation, only  upon  condition  of  persevering  faith,  limits  His  plan 
of  salvation  to  such  faith,  and  has  appointed  unto  salvation  all  of 
whom  He  foreknew  that  they  would  thus  believe,  and  whose  sal- 
vation He  has  therefore  foreseen,  because  it  cannot  and  shall  not 
deceive.  For  our  Confession  does  not  recognize  a  blind  pre- 
destination, unenlightened  by  knowledge.  Thus  also  the  strict 
Lutheran  Leonh.  Hutter  teaches,  who  in  his  Compendium  em.- 
ploys  chiefly  the  very  words  of  the  Symbolical  Books,  never  in 
the  least  contradicting  them:  'Christ  is  considered  in  the 
decree  of  election  not  only  as  a  Mediator  in  general,  but  also  in 
so  far  as  He  is  really  embraced  by  men  in  faith,  etc.  Do  you  then 
maintain  that  God  has  elected  men  with  reference  to  foreseen 
faith?  (Answer:)  Why  should  I  not  believe  it,  since  the  Holy 
Scriptures  most  plainly  maintain  it?  Thesis  1.  God  has  resolved 
in  His  eternal  decree  that  He  will  save  nobody  outside  of  those 
who  in  true  faith  acknowledge  His  Son  Jesus  Christ.  Therefore: 
Thesis  2.  God  has  elected  men  to  salvation  with  respect  to  fore- 
seen faith." 

So  far  Pres.  F.  quotes  the  "strict  Lutheran  L.  Hutter"  and 
then  proceeds:  "Note  among  his  (Hutter's)  proof-passages, 
John  17,  20 ;  2  Thess.  2,  13j  James  2,  5.  The  simple  dogmatical 
definitions  follow  for  him:  The  essence  of  God's  election  consists 
in  the  purpose,  in  the  foreknowledge  and  in  the  foreordinatipn. 


Appendix.  765 

The  purpose  is  the  will  of  God  that  whosoever  believeth  on  the 
Son  (namely,  unto  the  end),  shall  have  eternal  life.  The  fore- 
knowledge is  the  prescience  (knowing  beforehand),  according  to 
which  He  has  foreseen  from  eternity  the  individuals  who  would 
thus  believe  in  Christ.  The  foreordination,  the  predestination 
itself  is  the  act  according  to  which  He  has  given  to  these  eternal 
life — election  took  place  both  according  to  the  purpose  and  ac- 
cording to  foreknowledge.     Cf.  Eph.  1,  5-9,  with  1  Pet.  1,  1,  2." 

So  far  Pres.  Fiirbringer,  this,  we  think,  will  suffice.  He 
presents  this  as  the  distinctive  feature  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine 
of  election,  the  Calvinists  do  not,  as  do  the  Lutherans,  "make 
election  to  have  taken  place  in  foresight  of  persevering  faith,  i. 
e.,  do  not  condition  election  by  this  divine  foreknowledge."  Con- 
cerning the  mystery  he  tells  us:  "Their  (the  Calvinists)  hidden 
divine  will  is  really  the  revealed  will,  for  otherwise  they  could 
know  nothing  about  its  contents  and  import  and  about  its 
relation  to  the  revealed  will"  (Missouri  says,  it  is  not  intended  for 
us  to  know  anything  about  it,  that  just  this  is  the  mystery.  The 
Calvinistic  cap  fits  both  before  and  behind);  "their  revealed  will  is,, 
in  turn,  a  hidden  will,  it  reveals  nothing,  in  fact  it  only  conceals 
God's  true  will,  in  so  far  as  it  contradicts  the  latter." 

In  "Lehre  u.  Wehre,"  1868,  there  appeared  an  article  by  Rev. 
Dr.  Sihler,  in  which  he  again  sets  it  down  as  a  Calvinistic  error 
that  God  has  elected  without  foresight  of  faith.  In  his  Postille 
Dr.  Sihler  says:  "These  are  the  few,  whom  God  of  His  free 
grace,  according  to  the  purpose  of  His  will,  has  elected  to  eternal 
salvation  and  glory  in  foresight  of  their  persevering  faith  in  Christ,, 
wrought  by  the  Gospel,"  p.  170.  In  the  sermon  for  the  twentieth 
Sunday,  p.  Tr.  "But  these  God  has  not  merely  foreseen  accord- 
ing to  His  omniscience,  as  being  in  persevering  faith,  but  at  the 
same  time  has  elected  and  foreordained  them  unto  eternal  sal- 
vation in  Christ,  of  His  free  grace,  and  according  to  the  purpose 
of  His  will." 

Regarding  the  certainty  he  tells  us  in  the  same  place:  "To 
this  grace  we  should  cling  and  hold  in  faith  immovably.  .  .  » 
But  we  should  not  inquisitively  seek  and  question  concerning 
our  own  or  others'  election  and  predestination.  For  if  we  per- 
severe in  this  faith  until  the  end,  vve  are  certainly  elected." 

The  sainted  Director  Lindemann,  of  the  School  Teachers'" 
Seminary  in  Addison,  dictated  to  his  seminary  students,  among 


766  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

other  things,  the  following:  "Election  does  not  embrace  all  men, 
but  only  persevering  believers.  These  were  known  to  God  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  world  according  to  their  person,  dispo- 
sition, and  number."  "God  gives  the  elect  eternal  life  only  because 
He  sees  them  in  Christ  and  as  remaining  in  Christ,  namely 
through  faith." 

"He  has  foreseen  the  elect,  i.  e.  He  has  known  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  what  persons  would  believe  in  Christ 
unto  the  end  (foreknowledge,  prescience)."  "He  knew  before- 
hand who  would  not  believe,  who  would  believe  for  a  time,  who 
would  believe  perseveringly.  This  knowing  the  persevering 
believers  is  God's  foreknowledge."  Thus  Director  Lindemann 
understood  questions  321  and  322  of  our  Catechism!  This  he 
evidently  regarded  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Missouri  Synod.  He 
uses  in  this  connection  two  axioms,  formerly  published  several 
times  in  "Lehre  u.  Wehre";  "Not  for  the  sake  of  faith,  but  through 
faith,  we  are  elected  unto  eternal  life."  (Not  "unto  faith,"  as 
Missouri  now  says.)  "God  has  indeed  elected  those  only  who 
believe,  but  not  because  they  believe."  Faith  itself  is  nothing 
meritorious,  but  only  holds  Christ's  merit,  in  which  we  are  elected. 
Therefore  faith  is  indeed  a  necessary  condition  of  election  and  yet 
not  a  meritorious  cause.  Still  Dr.  Luther  very  often  says:  On 
account  of  faith,  for  the  sake  of  faith,  because  we  believe.  The 
Holy  Scriptures  also  often  say:  By  faith,  so  that  our  justification 
and  salvation  flow  from  faith,  as  frorni  their  fountain  and  cause. 
Then,  however,  Christ's  merit  is  always  meant,  which  faith  has. 
But  Missouri  condemns  all  these  expressions  as  Pelagian, 

Past.  O.  Hanser  (now  first  vice  president  of  the  entire  synod) 
in  November,  1867,  presented  to  the  New  England  Pastoral  Con- 
ference (to  which  only  Missouri  pastors  belonged),  a  catechiza- 
tion  on  question  321-328  of  Dietrich's  Catchism,  and  this  cate- 
chization  was  printed  in  September,  1868,  in  the  "Schulblatt," 
published  by  the  Missouri  Synod.  The  work  has  had  the  appro- 
bation of  that  whole  conference  as  well  as  of  the  editorial  man- 
agement of  the  "Schulblatt";  and  since  the  catechization  ap- 
peared in  this  synodical  publication  and  remained  there  unat- 
tacked  and  undisputed,  the  doctrine  it  contained  is,  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  word,  to  be  regarded  as  the  doctrine  of  the  whole 
synod.     I  direct  attention  to  the  following  questions : 

Under  question  eight  a  definition  of  election  is  given:  "Elec- 


Appendix.  767 

tioii  is  the  divine  decree,  graciously  to  save  all  who  perseveringly 
believe  in  Christ."  (According  to  the  present  teaching  of  the 
St.  Louis  men  it  would  have  to  read:  "Election  is  a  secret  decree 
of  God,  to  call  some  unbelieving  persons  through  the  Gospel,  to 
enlighten  them  with  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  sanctify  them 
in  the  true  faith  and  preserve  them  therein  and  thus  to  save  them. 
God  has  not  elected  believers,  but  unbelievers;  that  they  become 
believers  is  the  fruit  and  result  of  election.") 

Question  "27.  To  what  condition  on  the  part  of  man  is, 
accordingly,  election  unto  eternal  life  bound?  To  this  condition 
that  he  perseveringly  believe  in  Christ." 

"28.  How  can  we  therefore  describe  the  divine  decree  of 
election,  since  it  is  bound  to  this  condition?  We  can  describe 
it  as  a  conditional  decree." 

"29.  What  does  this  divine  decree  of  election  embrace  ac- 
cording to  question  322  of  our  Catechism?  It  embraces  in  a 
certain  order  all  causes  and  means  of  our  salvation." 

"30.  In  what  words  does  St.  Paul  accurately  state  these? 
Rom.  S,  28-30,  'We  know,'  etc." 

"31.  We  must  here  learn  to  understand,  first  of  all,  each 
separate  word.  What  does  the  word 'foreknow' mean?  To  know 
beforehand." 

"32.  What  does:  'Them  He  also  did  predestinate'  mean? 
Them  He  elected." 

"33.  What  did  God  foreknow  in  predestination?  Per- 
severing faith  in  Christ." 

"34.  What  has  God  done  furthermore,  according  to  the 
apostle's  words,  for  those  whom  He  has  elected  as  persevering 
believers?     He  has  also  called  them." 

"35.  Whereby,  by  what  means,  has  He  called  them?  By 
the  Gospel." 

"36.  What  has  He  wrought  in  them  by  the  Gospel,  when 
He  called  them?     Faith." 

"37.  ^What  has  God  done  further  unto  those  whom  he 
called?     He  has  also  justified  them." 

"38.  How  has  He  justified  them?  He  has  imputed  unto 
them  Christ's  righteousness — has  bestowed  upon  them  forgive- 
ness of  sin." 

"39.  What  has  He  finally  done  unto  those  who  have  been 
justified?     He  has  also  glorified  them." 


768  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

"40.  It  is  important  to  know  and  to  hold  fast  this  order 
and  plan  of  means  and  causes  in  election,  because  a  large  Pro- 
testant denomination — the  Reformed-Calvinistic" — (now,  alas! 
the  Missouri  Synod,  the  author  of  this  catechization,  the  New 
England  Pastoral  Conference,  the  editors  of  the  "Schulblatt,"  etc., 
etc.,  are  to  be  included)  "holds  an  entirely  different  doctrine  of 
election.  Who  can  state  this  doctrine  in  a  few  words?  They 
teach  that  God  unconditionally"  (underscored  in  "Schulblatt"" 
itself)  "has  from  eternity  appointed  the  smaller  number  of  meu' 
unto  salvation,  the  larger  number  unto  damnation."  (Missouri 
will  not  say  the  latter;  she  would  thus  keep  up  the  appearance  of 
being  far  removed  from  the  Calvinists.  Vain  effort!  But  this 
subject  does  not  belong  here.) 

"41.  How  many  causes  and  means  of  election  unto  salvation 
does  our  Catechism  state  in  question  323?     Three." 

"42.  Which  is  the  first  cause  of  our  salvation?  The  infinite 
mercy  of  God." 

"43.  WhatdoesSt.  Paulsay,  2Tim,  1, 9?  God  has  .  .  .. 
according  to  His  purpose  and  grace     .     .     ." 

"44.  Which  is  the  second  cause  of  our  salvation  .  .  .?■ 
The  infinite  merit  of  Christ." 

"45.  God's  grace  is  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  we  already 
have  learned  in  Eph.  1,  4f.  that  God  has  elected  us  in  whom?  In 
Christ     .     .     .     through  Jesus  Christ." 

"46.  Christ  has  acquired  this  grace  for  us  through  His  life,, 
suffering  and  death.  By  what  means  is  Christ,  with  His  merit, 
offered  to  us?     By  the  Gospel." 

"47.  What  is  therefore  the  third  cause  of  salvation?"  ( — Of 
election,  of  predestination  unto  salvation?  See  questions  40  and 
41.)     "Persevering,  saving  faith  in  Christ." 

These  extracts  are  sufficient  to  convince  every  one  who  still 
loves  the  truth  that  formerly  election  in  view  of  faith  was  taught 
in  Missourian  publications.  So  far  as  leading  persons  in  the 
synod  are  concerned,  the  doctrine  was  publicly  presented  by  Past. 
Schieferdecker,  Dr.  Sihler  (who  in  his  retraction  expressly  men- 
tions, that  he  sent  in  his  theses  in  agreemnt  with  Prof.  Cramer;  the 
venerable  gentleman  does  not  appear  to  relish  bearing  the  blame 
by  himself),  Pres.  Fiirbringer,  Dir.  Lindemann  and  Vice.  Pres. 
Hanser.     So  far  as  the  synodical  publications  are  concerned,  the- 


Appendix.  769 

doctrine  was  set  forth  in  the  "Liitheraner,"  "Lehre  u.  Wehre" 
and  in  "Schtilblatt." 

Now  on  which  side  is  the  "He"  and  "gross  falsehood"?  On 
ours,  when  we  maintain  that  the  Missouri  Synod  formerly  held 
the  same  doctrine  that  we  still  hold,  or  on  Dr.  W.'s,  who  calls 
this  a  gross  falsehood?  Still,  Dr.  W.  tries  to  help  himself.  In 
Chicago  Past.  Rohe  directed  attention  to  Pres.  Fiirbringer's  and 
Dr.  Sihler's  essays  and  said  that  he  could  not  harmonize  with 
these  the  present  teaching  of  the  opponents  (the  St,  Louis  men). 
Dr.  W.  answered :  "One  sees  from  this  that  at  that  time  we  still 
tolerated  the  second  'Lehrtropus'  [type  of  doctrine]  in  our 
midst."     Minutes,  p.  88. 

Again:  "That  was  not  properly  the  opinion  of  our  Synod, 
but  the  private  opinion  of  Dr.  Sihler  and  Pres.  Fiirbinger.  It 
was  not  mine,  who  am  the  editor,  appointed  as  such  by  Synod, 
and  besides  a  teacher  of  dogmatics.  Whoever  says  that  lies." 
Here  again — "lies."  Observe  what  a  foul  subterfuge  is  here  re- 
sorted to  by  Dr.  W. !  Note  well  this  strict,  orthodox  synod,  op- 
posed to  all  arbitrariness  in  doctrine  and  to  all  unionism,  "tol- 
erated," yes  tolerated  what  she  now  calls  "unfounded  exegesis," 
"introduction  at  pleasure  of  foreign  matter  into  God's  Word," 
and  "Pelagianism,"  and  what  she  has  now  repeatedly  character- 
ized in  the  words  of  the  C.  F. :  "All  these  erroneous  doctrines  are 
blasphemous  and  dreadful,  whereby  there  is  removed  from  Chris- 
tians all  the  comfort  which  they  have  in  the  holy  Gospel  and  the 
use  of  the  holy  Sacraments,  and  therefore  should  not  be  tolerated 
in  the  Church  of  God."  And  yet  Missouri  "tolerated"  it,  Missouri 
so  true  to  the  Confessions!  In  order,  however,  to  palliate  this 
anti-confessional  toleration,  the  expression  "second  Lehrtropus" 
[second  type  or  form  of  doctrine]  has  been  invented,  as  if  the 
discussions  were  concerned  merely  about  a  different  manner  of 
presentation,  instead  of  about  an  entirely  different  doctrine!  And 
in  order  to  justify  their  present  condemnation,  which  certainly 
cannot  refer  to  an  innocent  manner  of  doctrinal  presentation,  they 
pretend  that  we  have  not  the  "2d  Lehrtropus"  at  all,  but  an  alto- 
gether different  doctrine;  they  did  not  condemn  the  "2d  Lehrtro- 
pus"— but  then,  again,  this  will  not  harmonize  with  what  Dr.  W. 
says  in  the  same  Minutes,  p.  16:  "These  (the  dogmaticians,  who 
have  the  2d  Lehrtropus)  do  not  speak  of  the  election  spoken  of 
in  the  C.  F. ;  they  refer  to  an  altogether  different  thing."     So  here 


770  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

the  "Tropus"  is  quite  a  different  thing",  a  different  doctrine.  From 
the  beginning  they  did  not  mean  us,  but  "these,"  the  orthodox 
teachers  of  our  Church.  Add  to  this  that  the  2d  Lehrtropus  will 
not  at  all  "tolerate"  the  St.  Louis  doctrine.  Pol.  Leyser  says: 
■"Wherefore  we  reject  and  condemn  from  the  bottom  of  our  hearts 
the  Calvinistic  separation  of  some  certain  persons  without  con- 
sidering their  faith  in  Christ,  as  a  horrible,  blasphemous  error." 
For  "the  Calvinists  not  only  do  violence  to  this  clear  passage 
(Acts  13,  48),  but  to  the  whole  Scriptures,  by  inventing  a  bare 
appointment  of  some  certain  persons  unto  faith,  when  the  Scrip- 
tures nowhere  say  that  we  are  predestinated  and  appointed  by 
God  unto  faith,  but  we  are  predestinated  and  appointed  unto 
eternal  life  by  the  pure  grace  of  God  through  faith  in  Christ." 
Even  a  Missourian  will  not  dare  to  deny  that  Leyser  hits  exactly 
the  present  Missourian  doctrine  and  rejects  and  condemns  it  as 
a  horrible,  blasphemous  error.  But  all  who  have  any  acquaint- 
ance with  our  dogmaticians  know  that  the  "2d  Lehrtropus"  is 
throughout  couched  in  the  language  Leyser  employs.  Even 
Pres.  Fiirbringer,  as  we  have  seen,  calls  this  the  point  of  differ- 
ence between  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  doctrine,  that  election  is 
said  to  be  a  cause  of  faith,  in  so  far  as  the  latter  would  be  the 
effect  of  the  former.  Thus  the  "2d  Lehrtropus"  does  not  deal  at 
all  gently  with  the  lad  Absalom,  who,  assuming  the  title,  Tropus 
I,  is  trying  to  climb  into  the  throne,  but  calls  him  a  bastard.  And 
this,  Dr.  W.  tells  us,  he  has  thus  far  tolerated,  that  is  to  say,  he 
has  "tolerated"  that  "an  altogether  different  thing"  was  pro- 
claimed as  God's  eternal  election,  and  the  true  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion was  cried  down  as  Calvinistic,  and  he  permitted  "Lehre  u. 
Wehre,"  whose  editor  he  is,  "placed  there  as  such  by  Synod,"  to 
do  service  for  such  a  piece  of  deception!  Only  Dr.  Walther's 
enemies  will  believe  that.  Moreover,  the  Synod  from  the  start 
has  never  allowed  its  publications  to  be  at  the  disposal  of  doc- 
trinal departures,  and  Rev.  Dr.  W.  would  never  have  allowed  him- 
self to  be  appointed  editor,  if  he  had  had  to  accept  articles  with 
whose  doctrinal  contents  he  did  not  agree.  He  would  have  re- 
garded it  as  a  piece  of  insolence,  if  any  one  in  the  Synod  had  de- 
manded the  acceptance  of  dissenting  articles.  This  is  so  well 
known  within  the  Synod  that  no  more  need  be  said  about  it.  As 
far  as  my  knowledge  goes,  Dr.  W.  has  published  two  articles  that 
did  not  receive  his  approval — in  the  one  only  the  "form  of  ex- 


Appendix.  771 

pression  used"  was  objected  to,  the  "orthodox  meaning  of  the 
passage,  however,  appearing  from  the  context."  In  both  in- 
stances Dr.  W.  immediately  made  his  disapproval  known  in  a 
footnote.  The  extended  discussions  on  election  (Pres.  Fiirbrin- 
ger's  alone  occupies  80  pages),  together  with  their  condemnatory- 
propositions,  appear  without  a  dissenting-  word.  What  right  then 
has  Dr.  W.  to  say  that  this  is  not  his  own,  not  even  really  the 
voice  of  Synod,  but  only  the  "private  opinion"  of  the  persons  com- 
municating the  articles?  Who  in  the  Missouri  Synod  so  regarded 
the  matter?  Certainly  nobody,  till  Dr.  W.  in  the  year  1880,  in 
Chicago,  said  so.  There  may  have  been  secret  Calvinists  in  the 
Synod,  who  therefore  did  not  agree  with  these  articles.  Dr.  W. 
himself  may  have  been  one  of  these  persons.  The  fact,  however, 
that  Dr.  Walther  accepted  the  articles  without  any  remark,  and 
that  other  pastors  who  possibly  were  Calvinistically  disposed 
raised  no  protest,  proves  incontestably,  that  they  did  not  regard 
their  diverging  views  as  synodical  doctrine,  and  therefore  kept 
these  views  carefully  to  themselves. 

When  Mr.  Volkening  published  in  St.  Louis  the  "82  Trost- 
reden"  [Consolatory  Discourses]  of  Lassenius,  P.  Grabau  re- 
viewed the  little  book  in  the  "Informatorium"  and  at  the  same 
time  sought  to  furnish  a  proof  from  the  book  against  Dr.  W.'s 
doctrine  concerning  the  Church  and  the  Ministerial  Office.  In 
replly  Dr.  W.  said  in  the  "Lutheraner,"  January  22,  1862:  "It 
looks  astonishing  and  amusing  to  us  that  the  'Informatorium' 
seeks  to  prove  from  this  pure  Lutheran  book  that  we  have  taught 
false  doctrine;  astonishing  and  amusing,  because  we  (Dr.  W.)  have 
selected  and  arranged  these  Trostreden."  He  evidently  means: 
It  is  nonsense  to  suppose  that  Dr.  W.  would  encourage  the  publi- 
cation of  something  with  which  he  did  not  himself  agree.  In  the 
little  book  referred  to  Dr.  W.'s  name  does  not  appear,  and  so  P. 
Grabau  did  ]iot  know  that  Dr.  W.  had  selected  and  arranged  the 
"Trostreden,"  and  that  they  could  not  possibly  contain  a  doctrine 
that  did  not  receive  Dr.  W.'s  approval.  So  finely  had  Dr.  W. 
caught  his  opponent  that  he  was  "amused"  to  see  the  latter 
squirm.  At  the  same  time  he  related  how  Dr.  Luther  (Dr.  W.'s 
forerunner)  at  one  time  pubHshed  a  little  book  without  adding 
his  name  to  it,  and  how  Duke  George,  Luther's  bitter  enemy, 
praised  the  book  and  declared:  Luther,  at  any  rate,  could  not 
write  such  a  book.     (Similar  stories  from  the  life  of  Dr.  Luther 


772  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

are  now,  of  course,  frequently  told  by  Dr.  W.)  But  stop  and 
compare  with  this  Dr.  W.'s  statement  concerning  the  article  which 
he  had  accepted  in  "Lehre  u.  Wehre,"  and  by  which  Past.  Rohe 
wanted  to  prove  to  him  in  Chicago  how  falsely  he  now  taught! 
According  to  the  way  in  which  Dr.  W.  disposed  of  P.  Grabau, 
he  would  have  had  to  say:  It  is  astonishing  and  amusing  to  us 
that  Past.  Rohe  would  prove  to  us  by  this  pure  Lutheran  period- 
ical ("L.  &  W."),  how  falsely  we  have  taught!  Wonderful  and 
amusing,  because  we  ourselves  published  this  periodical!  How 
different  his  evasion  now!  "Private  opinion  of  Dr.  Sihler  and 
Pres.  Fiirbringer,  but  not  mine,  who  am  the  editor."  Over 
against  Past.  Grabau  it  was  nonsense  that  he  should  encourage 
the  publication  of  anything  that  was  not  his  own  teaching,  over 
against  Past.  Rohe  it  is  not  nonsense;  Dr.  W.  himself  says  that 
he  did  not  agree  with  what  he  permitted  to  be  published  and  dares 
to  add:     "Whoever  says  this"  (that  he  agreed),  "Hes." 

For  Dr.  W.'s  greater  discomfiture,  the  "2nd  Lehrtropus" 
is  maintained  in  the  book  referred  to  and  this  \ery  explicitly  and 
decidedly.  On  p.  153  we  read:  "This  election  did  not  occur 
absolutely,  but  in  Christ  Jesus,  not  without  regard  to  faith,  with- 
out which  no  one  can  please  God,  Heb.  11,  6,  but  by  means  of 
and  through  faith."  P.  155:  "We  teach  and  believe,  as  God's 
Word  teaches  us,  that  election  unto  eternal  life  took  place  in 
eternity,  not  by  a  mere  decree  and  pleasure,  but  in  foresight  of 
faith,  since  God  knew  that  the  believers  and  elect  would  remain 
therein."  P.  157:  "God  has  not  elected  us  that  we  should  believe, 
but  because  He  foresaw  that  we  would  believe;  but  that  faith  is 
the  means  of  election,  to  which  in  eternity  He  directed  election, 
Paul  shows  in  Eph.  1,  4:  He  has  elected  us  in  Christ  Jesus,  which 
means:  God  has  elected  us  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  we  embrace  in 
true  faith,  because  faith  is  a  correlative  of  Christ"  (that  is,  faith 
and  Christ  belong  together —  Dr.  W.  himself  translated  the  Latin 
word  in  the  margin!)  P.  185:  "But  because  God  foresaw  that 
some  would  accept  this  grace,  and  that  others  would  reject  it,, 
He  decreed  at  the  same  time  that  He  would  elect  the  obedient  and 
reject  the  others,  the  disobedient."  P.  158  Lassenius  says: 
"When  faith  is  considered  according  to  its  relation  in  time,  we 
may  call  it  more  a  fruit  of  election,  although  we  must  use  such 
forms  of  expression  very  cautiously;  notwithstanding  it  is  not 
contrary  to  the  analogy  of  faith  to  say  that  the  faith  of  the  elect 


Appendix.  773 

proceeds  from  the  election  to  salvation."  By  the  warning-  that 
we  should  use  such  expressions  cautiously,  and  by  the  mere  con- 
cession that  it  is  not  contrary  to  the  analogy  of  faith,  Lassenius 
shows  with  sufficient  clearness  that  these  are  unusual  expres- 
sions, easily  misunderstood,  although  they  are  not  therefore  to 
be  condemned  under  any  and  all  circumstances,  providing  one 
does  not  deny  the  proper  relation  between  faith  and  election; 
and  this  Missouri  does  now.  On  p,  156  Lassenius  maintains 
(just  as  Dietrich's  Catechism  and  the  Missourian  "Schulblatt") 
that  there  are  three  causes  of  justification  and  election,  and  in  this 
sentence  Dr.  W.  has  again  translated  a  Latin  word  used  by 
Lassenius.  This  sentence,  too,  passed  properly  under  Dr.  W.'s 
supervision.  Not  a  single  syllable  indicates  that  he  does  not 
agree.  In  the  preface  to  the  book  he  says  that  the  "whole  con- 
tents are  drawn  from  the  pure  and  unadulterated  Word  of  God" 
and  afterwards  he  ridicules  Pastor  Grabau  in  the  "Lutheraner," 
because  he  thought  he  had  found  something  in  the  book  that  was 
contrary  to  Dr.  W.'s  doctrine. 

I  ask  now:  Did  not  Dr.  W.  most  decidedly  confess  the  doc- 
trine of  election  as  taught  in  that  little  book,  especially  since  he 
explained  two  of  the  most  striking  passages  by  annotations? 
Did  he  not,  with  Lassenius,  reject  the  Calvinistic  proposition: 
■"God  has  elected  us  that  we  should  believe"  (unto  faith),  and 
on  the  other  hand  accept  the  proposition:  "but  because  He  fore- 
saw that  we  would  believe,"  as  well  as  all  other  statements  of 
similar  import?  Dr.  W.  and  his  blind  worshipers  have  here  evi- 
dently only  two  statements  between  which  to  choose:  Either  he 
then  already  held  the  doctrine  so  distinctly  expressed  in  the  above 
sentences  to  be  the  grossest  Pelagianism;  and  if  so,  then  he 
acted  as  a  genuine  deceiver  by  encouraging  the  publication  of 
such  teachings  and  unrestrictedly  praising  the  whole  contents 
in  the  preface,  and  furthermore  he  shamefully  played  the  hypo- 
crite over  against  Grabau  and  ridiculed  him  without  reason.  Or, 
he  at  that  time  agreed  with  Lassenius;  and  if  so,  then  he  sins 
grievously  against  us,  by  calling  it  "gross  falsehood"  and  "lies" 
when  we  say  that  he  so  agreed,  that  this  was  also  his  doctrine. 
Yea,  he  sins  against  us  in  either  case  by  his  ixcusations;  for  he 
evidently  at  least  confessed  the  doctrine  of  Lassenius,  whether 
he  believed  it  or  not;  we  must  judge  his  position  by  his  words. 
On  which  side,  then,  is  the  "gross  falsehood"  and  "lie"? 


774  A  Testivi07iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine^  Etc. 

In  addition,  Dr.  W.  in  part  republished  a  great  number  of 
other  works  written  by  the  fathers  and  in  part  recommended  them 
most  unreservedly.  These  books  teach  an  election  in  view  of 
faith,  defend  it  by  citations  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  what 
Missouri  to-day  teaches  is  most  positively  rejected  and  con- 
demned. This  is  true,  for  example,  of  tht-  renowned  Weimar 
Bible,  so  strongly  recommended  in  the  "Lutheraner."  In  the 
preface  to  the  new  edition  of  this  work  Dr.  W.  says:  "After  using 
this  work  for  many  years,  we  say  with  a  great  multitude  of  the 
most  enlightened  theologians  of  our  Church,  most  positively  and 
confidently,  that  the  reader  has  in  this  book  an  exposition  of  the 
Scriptures  that  is  throughout  in  harmony  with  the  analogy  of 
faith  and  in  doctrine  as  pure  as  gold."  Now,  this  work  explains 
"foreknow,"  Rom.  8,  29,  and  "foreknowledge,"  1  Pet.  1,  by: 
"foreknew  that  they  would  believe."  This  "exposition  of  the 
Scriptures  as  pure  as  gold"  is  now  called  in  St.  Louis  an  "un- 
founded exposition  of  the  Scriptures."  On  2  Thess,  2,  13: 
"Because  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation 
through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth,"  the 
"exposition  of  the  Scriptures  as  pure  as  gold"  reads  as  follows: 
"That  the  Holy  Ghost  has  called  you  to  Christ's  kingdom  by 
the  Word  of  the  Gospel,  and  has  wrought  in  your  hearts  true 
faith  in  Christ,  and  thereby  regenerated,  renewed,  and  sanctified 
you:  and  because  this  gracious  work  was  known  in  you  froni 
eternity  to  God  the  Lord,  Acts  15,  18,  He  from  eternity  also 
elected  you  in  such  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  in  such  true 
faith  in  Christ."  Because  our  call  and  faith  were  known  to  Him — - 
that  is  now  called  gross  Pelagianism.  Could  Dr.  W.  so  have 
regarded  it,  when  he  overwhelmed  the  work  with  such  unstinted 
praise?  But  whether  he  so  regarded  it  or  not  —  this  much  he 
can  not  dispute,  that  such  a  commendation  is  more  than  mere 
"toleration."  In  his  "Beleuchtung,"  p.  31,  Dr.  W.  replies  on 
this  point:  When  one,  in  recommending  an  otherwise  excellent 
book,  at  the  same  time  draws  attention  to  the  fact  that  indeed 
some  things  that  are  false  are  contained  therein,  the  purchasers 
would  thereby  be  filled  with  suspicion.  But  who  ever  expected 
to  read  anything  of  that  sort  from  Dr.  W.'s  pen!  Again  he  says: 
"In  our  Church  we  are  continually  taught  that  one  should  test 
all  human  books  by  God's  Word  and  hold  fast  the  good  only. 
However  much  a  true  Lutheran  may  praise  a  book,  it  is  always 


Appendix.  'J'JS 

a  self-evident  presupposition,  that  thereby  he  does  not  mean  to 
say  that  the  book  contains  no  mistakes."  "Does  not  mean  to 
say"  —  even  not  then,  when  he  does  say  it  in  so  many  words, 
as  Dr.  W.  said  it  with  regard  to  the  "82  Trcstreden"  and  the 
Weimar  Bible?  O  these  endless  shameful  evasions,  which  wouIS 
all  be  unnecessary  if  he  would  simply  and  honestly  declare:  We 
did  not  formerly  hold  it  to  be  false,  we  do  now  hold  it  to  be 
so:    our  convictions  have  changed. 

I  must  yet  call  attention  to  a  book  very  warmly  recommended 
by  Dr.  W.  in  which  these  make-shifts  are  annihilated.  We  refer 
to  a  book,  which  (as  he  says)  "preachers  can  put  into  the  hands 
of  their  hearers  in  order  that  these  may  thereby  inform  themselves 
respecting  the  difiference  between  the  true  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church  and  the  Reformed  Church"  Among  the  many  works 
serving  this  purpose,  the  one  by  H.  G.  Masius  ("Kurzer  Bericht," 
etc.),  in  Dr.  W.'s  judgment,  is  the  best  of  the  older  works.  "This 
little  book  is  much  to  be  preferred  to  many  other  books  of  a 
similar  nature,  both  on  account  of  the  earnest  yet  mild  spirit 
displayed,  a  spirit  that  speaks  the  truth  in  love,  and  also  on 
account  of  the  clearness  and  thoroughness  of  its  proofs."  "L.  u. 
W.,"  1857,  p.  43. 

With  regard  to  this  little  book  Dr.  W.  can  not  say  that  he 
presupposed,  when  he  unreservedly  recommended  it,  that  the 
reader  would  of  himself  recognize  whatever  falsehood  it  con- 
tained; for  the  book  had  this  as  its  object,  to  show  what  is  false, 
in  order  that  the  laity  might  learn  to  test  other  writings. 

What,  now,  does  the  book  say  about  the  "difference  between 
the  true  Evangelical  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed"  doctrine  of 
election?  I  quote  only  a  few  sentences  from  its  thorough  expo- 
sition of  the  subject:  ' 

"VIL  Question:  Did  election  take  place  in  eternity  accord- 
ing to  the  mere  will  and  absolute  decree  of  God,  without  the 
foresight  of  faith  and  of  Christ's  merit?  The  Lutherans  say  no. 
The  Reformed  say  yes." 

"That  God  elected  certain  men  according  to  His  mere  pur- 
pose and  will  without  the  foresight  of  faith  based  on  the  merit 
o(  Jesus  Christ,  is  the  standard  doctrine  of  all  the  Reformed 
who  hold  to  their  symbolical  books  and  accept  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Synod  of  Dort;  and  though  some  indeed  grant  that 
election  did  not  occur  altogether  without  the  foresight  of  Christ'is. 


776  A  Testimo7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrme,  Etc. 

merit  and  of  faith,  yet  their  idea  is  not,  that  God  from  eternity 
elected  those  concerning  whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would 
believe  and  would  accept  the  merit  of  Christ,  but  that  He  elected 
a  certain  few  according  to  His  mere  absolute  will,  in  order  that 
they  might  believe  in  time.  Therefore  faith  is  not  regarded  by 
them  as  a  cause  or  condition  of  election,  but  as  a  necessary  effect 
of  election.  Cf.  here  the  Synod  of  Dort,  pp.  342,  524"  (and 
we,  alas!  would  have  to  add,  the  Synod  of  Missouri  on  all  pages). 
"Molingeus  says  in  so  many  words:  I  recognize  no  election  in 
view  of  faith,  whether  faith  be  regarded  as  a  cause  of  election 
or  as  a  preceding  condition.  God  has  not  elected  us  because 
we  believe  but  that  we  might  believe." 

That  this  describes  exactly  the  modern  Missourian  doctrine, 
Missouri  herself  will  not  deny.  But  Dr.  W.  has  most  warmly 
recommended  this  book,  which  declares  such  doctrine  to  be  false 
and  Calvinistic.  Could  he  have  done  that  if  at  that  time  he 
regarded  this  as  the  correct  Lutheran  doctrine? 

But  how  has  he  expressed  himself  concerning  this  doctrine? 
His  blind  devotees  give  themselves  all  ccnceivable  trouble  to 
prove  that  in  the  past  already  he  had  the  same  conviction  which 
he  has  now.  For  him  to  be  compelled  to  admit  that  he  did  not 
formerly,  in  this  doctrine  at  least,  hold  the  same  position  that 
he  holds  now,  and  that  he  either  erred  formerly  or  errs  now, 
they  seem  to  regard  as  the  greatest  possible  misfortune,  and 
seek  to  shun  the  thought.  Certainly,  from  their  point  of  view,  it 
would  be  a  misfortune;  for  it  is  a  fact  that  Dr.  W.  is  regarded 
by  innumerable  pastors  and  church-members  as  well-nigh  infal- 
lible. How  often  have  we  had  to  hear  in  private  conversation: 
You  would  be  wiser  than  Dr.  W.,  and  he  so  learned  and  experi- 
enced, —  he  certainly  is  not  wrong.  This  idolatrous  trust  is  one 
of  the  powers  that  secretly  supports  the  present  false  doctrine 
in  that  synod.  That  confidence  would  naturally  be  destroyed 
as  soon  as  it  would  be  conceded  openly:  Yes,  Dr.  W.  also  erred 
formerly;  he  taught  as  do  his  present  opponents,  and  the  con- 
troversy arose  because  he  recognized  and  cast  of?  his  error,  whilst 
his  opponents  still  hold  to  the  error.  This  would  indeed  be  the 
open  and  honorable  way  for  Dr.  W.  and  his  followers  to  take; 
but  they  do  not  possess  either  the  love  of  truth  or  sufificient  con- 
fidence in  their  pretended  biblical  truth,  to  take  this  straight, 
Christian  course:   they  prefer  to  take  refuge  fn  evasions  which, 


Appendix.  777 

on  the  one  hand,  are  manifestly  untrue,  on  the  other  hand,  brand 
Dr.  Walther  as  one  of  the  greatest  hypocrites  that  ever  Hved. 
Their  subterfuge  is  this:  "That,  whilst  years  ago  he  held  the 
-doctrine  which  he  now  teaches  and  defends,  he  did  not  vigorously 
urge  and  explain  it,  only  slightly  touching  upon  it  and  thus  pre- 
paring the  way  for  its  later  introduction  and  explanation."  This 
is  sufficient  for  us.  Prof.  Dr.  Walther,  accordingly,  formerly 
Tield  the  doctrine  and  also  taught  it,  but  with  great  caution  and 
discretion.  In  his  case  no  "new  departure"  occurred  in  recent 
times  (he  did  not  adopt  a  new  doctrine).  "2.  We  can  herewith 
assure  Prof.  Loy  that  these  'slight  references'  to  this  doctrine 
■operated  powerfully  among  us.  Our  opinion  is  that  when  a 
professor,  in  his  lectures  on  a  compendium  before  his  class,  dic- 
tates notes  whereby  a  doctrine,  a  Lehrtropus,  etc.,  is  corrected, 
such  dictations  arouse  much  more  attention  and  have  a  greater 
effect,  than  when  their  contents  is  communicated  otherwise. 
When  they  are  of  the  nature  of  those  stated  to  us  by  Prof.  Dr. 
Walther,  they  constitute  semina"  (little  seeds)  "which,  when  they 
fall  on  good  ground,  at  once  proceed  to  germinate,  grow  and 
"bear  fruit"  (yes,  we  see  the  fruits  now!).  "3.  Prof.  Dr.  W.,  how- 
ever, expressed  himself  at  considerable  length  and  quite  plainly 
on  this  doctrine  in  the  year  18(13,  in  L.  u.  W.,  p.  289  sqq." 

Thus  writes  Pastor  Hiigli,  one  of  Dr.  W.'s  former  scholars 
and  present  followers,  in  ""L.  u.  W.,"  1881,  p.  323,  and  Dr.  W. 
allowed  it  to  pass!  This,  tlien,  is  the  defence:  Dr.  W.  held  this 
■doctrine  already  years  ago,  but  did  not  urge  it  vigorously,  only 
slightly  touched  upon  it —  N.  B.  "this  doctrine  dripping  with  com- 
fc'rt,"  the  "most  necessary  comfort,"  etc.,  only  "slightly  touched 
upon  it,"  and  so  prepared  the  way  for  its  later  introduction! 
Why,  why,  how  Dr.  W.'s  lawyer  forgets  his  role!  That  is  just 
what  we  say:  they  now  want  to  introduce  a  doctrine  that  was 
not  introduced  before;  at  that  time,  it  seems,  Dr.  W.  only  pre- 
pared the  way  for  this  step.  And  how  did  he  prepare  the  way? 
In  this  manner:  whilst  he  permitted,  in  "L.  u.  W.,"  the  free  pub- 
lication of  this  so-called  false  doctrine,  he  also  recommended 
unreservedly  other  books  containing  the  same  doctrine,  and 
always  pretended  to  recommend  nothing,  and  in  particular  to 
allow  nothing  to  be  printed,  that  was  not  pure  in  doctrine,  —  in 
the  meantime,  within  the  seminary  walls,  he  taught  his  students 
a  new  doctrine?  —  no;  only  "corrected  a  doctrine,  a  Lehrtropus" 


778  A  Testhnony  Against  the  False  Doctrine^  Etc. 

and  thus  only  scattered  little  seeds,  which  germinated  in  "good 
soil,"  ^  naturally  Pastor  Hiigli's  heart  belonged  to  that  "good 
soil"  —  ours,  if  you  please,  did  not  —  in  this  manner  Dr.  W. 
"prepared  the  way"  for  the  "later  introduction  of  the  doctrine 
which  he  now  teaches  and  defends."  We  ourselves  cannot  more 
thoroughly  prove  that  Dr.  W.  has  forsaken  his  former  position; 
for  here  the  matter  naturally  concerns  only  the  position  which 
he  openly  occupied,  not  that  which  he  believed  in  his  heart.  No 
one  can  more  deeply  damage  Dr.  W.'s  character  than  Pastor 
Hiigli  does;  for,  according  to  his  representations,  Dr.  W.  per- 
mitted a  doctrine  which  he  held  to  be  false  to  thrive  unimpeded 
in  the  periodicals  edited  by  himself,  and  only  gave  occasional 
intimations  in  his  lectures  of  the  opposite  pure  doctrine!  But 
all  this  they  take  into  the  bargain,  in  order  that  they  may  only 
hide  the  patent  fact,  that  Dr.  W.  either  erred  formerly  or  errs 
now. 

On  p.  142  Pastor  Hiigli  mentions  the  little  seeds  which  Dr. 
W.  scattered  in  the  seminary  and  with  which  he  is  said  to  have 
corrected  the  2nd  Tropus.  But  in  tliis  he  is  decidedly  unfortu- 
nate; for  in  none  of  the  statements  quoted  does  Dr.  W.  say  that 
the  2nd  Tropus  really  contains  false  doctrine,  he  does  not  once 
deny  that  faith  is  a  cause  of  our  justification  and  salvation,  but 
he  denies  only  that  faith  is  a  meritorious  cause  moving  God. 
And  this  all  orthodox  dogmaticians  of  our  Church  have  rejected^ 
and  we  also  reject  it.  Christ's  merit  is  the  cause;  but  no  one 
possesses  this  merit  except  through  faith,  and  only  in  so  far  is 
faith  necessary.  In  so  far  our  fathers  at  times  call  faith  a  cause, 
but  they  then  add:  not  a  meritorious,  but  only  an  instrumental 
cause.  Dr.  W.  gives  special  prominence  to  this  in  the  aforesaid 
connection,  and  this  is  what  Pastor  Hiigli  calls  little  seeds  which 
now,  in  "good  soil,"  bear  such  beautiful  fruit!  Thus  Dr.  W. 
is  said  to  have  corrected  the  2nd  Tropus!  Pastor  Hiigli  ouglrt 
himself  to  have  read  our  fathers,  and  he  would  have  found  that 
they  all  say  the  same  thing;  in  fact,  the  statements  quoted  from 
Dr.  W.  are  almost  altogether  utterances  of  the  fathers  them- 
selves. What  then,  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  did  Dr.  W. 
correct?  But  now  Dr.  W.  does  not  agree  with  the  fathers,  and 
his  devotees  create  an  atmosphere  of  mystification  and  cry  out: 
See  ye,  Dr.  W.  did  not  agree  already  in  the  past! 

Well,  the  writer  was  also  a  pupil  of  Dr.  W.'s,  and  even  after 


Appendix.  779 

the  time  of  Pastor  Hiigli.  He  dictated  to  me  among  things  the 
following  (and  my  fellow-students  —  about  17  in  number  —  may 
examine  whether  they  have  not  the  same  in  their  notes.  Pastor 
Hiigli  probably  has  it  in  his  notes  also,  but  he  does  not  quote  it — ) : 

"Quenstgedt:  False  doctrine  I.  of  the  Calvinists,  who  tear 
faith  out  of  the  decree  of  election  and  say  that  faith  belongs  to 
election  not  as  preceding,  but  as  following  it,  not  to  election 
itself,  but  to  its  execution.  Those  of  Dort  (say):  Election  is 
not  in  foresight  of  faith,  but  unto  faitli."  (That  is  exactly  the 
present  doctrine  of  Alissouri.  Then  Dr.  W.  dictated  it  to  us 
as  the  Calvinistic  antithesis!  These  are  the  little  seeds,  that 
were  sown  into  our  hearts!  "MoHngeus  says:  God  has  not 
elected  us  in  view  of  faith,  but  unto  faith."  Here  Dr.  W.  added 
by  way  of  parenthesis:  Cf.  Luther's  preface  to  Romans,  where 
he  says,  originally  faith  and  deliverance  from  sin  flow  from  God's 
eternal  predestination.  See  Carpzov's  Isagogics,  p.  1678."  Was 
this  perhaps  one  of  those  little  seeds?  We  know  now  Indeed  that 
he  understands  these  words  of   Luther  in   a  Calvinistic   sense. 

As  a  second   antithesis   (false  doctrine)   he   dictated  to  us: 

"H.  Certain  Scholastics  and  papists,  who  maintain  that  the 
foreseen  non-prevention  of  faith  is  an  effect  of  election."  Accord- 
ing to  modern  IMissouri's  teaching,  that  too  is  quite  right.  Now, 
after  all,  the  papists  defended  the  doctrine  that  God  justifies  and 
saves  by  free  grace  alone!     Bellarmin  also  belonged  to  that  class. 

Pastor  Hiigli  appeals  in  particular  to  an  article  by  Dr.  W. 
in  reply  to  an  attack  which  a  Reformed  writer  made  on  our 
Church.  It  is  certainly  interesting  to  hear  how  he  expresses 
himself  against  a  Calvinist  on  this  question.  The  answer  is  pecu- 
liar, that  I  grant  a  priori.  Not  that  he  then  already  set  forth 
his  present  doctrine,  —  precisely  this  is  what  he  did  not  do. 
The  Reformed  writer  had  made  exactly  the  same  charges  against 
the  Lutheran  Church  that. Dr.  W.  now  makes  against  the  2nd 
Tropus,  namely,  that  she  was  tainted  with  a  Roman  Catholic 
Pelagianism,  or  at  least  Semi-Pelagianism,  whilst  the  Reformed 
Church  ascribes  everything  to  free  grace,  electing  in  eternity  and 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  calling  in  time." 

From  his  present  standpoint  Dr.  W.  could  have  said  only 
this  in  reply:  "The  objection  does  not  strike  our  Formula  of 
Concord.  But  this,  alas!  is  true:  From  the  time  when  the 
Form.  Cone,  was  accepted,  our  theologians  went  astray  in  this 


780  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

particular.  For  they  have  all  taught  an  election  in  view  of  faitli 
(and  that  was  what  the  Reformed  writer  meant  and  what  Dr. 
W.  now  means).  The  objection  then  really  strikes  our  Church; 
for  the  fact  that  our  Confessions  are  pure  in  this  regard  does 
not  excuse  the  Church,  but  tends  to  her  greater  shame,  because 
in  spite  of  the  pure  confession,  she  has  tolerated  false  doctrine." 
This  much  Dr.  W.  would  have  been  compelled  to  grant  his 
opponent,  if  he  had  then  viewed  the  matter  as  he  does  now. 
But  that  he  did  not  do,  for  he  says  in  conclusion:  "How,  accord- 
ing to  what  has  been  said,  a  man  of  sound  understanding  could 
impute  the  slightest  taint  of  Roman  Catholic  Pelagianism  or 
Semi-Pelagianism  to  our  Church  is  wholly  inexplicable."  He 
does  not  at  all,  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  touch  on  the 
statement  of  our  Church,  that  God  has  elected  in  view  of  faith, 
which  proposition  the  Reformed  have  always  decried  as  heresy. 
On  the  otlier  hand,  he  grants  that  later  theologians  of  our  Church 
did  thus  set  forth  the  subject:  "As  the  unbelief  of  many,  foreseen 
by  God,  is  the  cause  for  which  God  has  from  eternity  resolved 
to  reject  and  condemn  them,  so  the  persevering  faith  of  a  number 
of  individuals,  foreseen  by  Him,  is  the  cause  for  which  God  has 
from  eternity  elected  them  to  salvation."  This  would  evidently 
be  fundamentally  false;  for  unbelief  deserves  damnation,  faith, 
however,  does  not  deserve  salvation,  but  receives  another's  merit. 
If  therefore  some  of  our  theologians  have  called  faith  a  cause 
of  election,  they  have  nevertheless  earnestly  guarded  themselves 
against  this  misunderstanding.  They  called  faith  an  instrumental 
cause  or  a  subordinate  cause,  never  a  meritorious  cause.  Dr. 
W.  does  not  say  who  in  "our  Church"  has  taught  this.  He  does 
not  mean  Gerhardt  and  Quenstsedt,  who  very  emphatically  defend 
the  "Tropus,"  for  he  cites  them  as  his  vouchers.  And  now  this 
is  why  I  call  his  reply  peculiar.  He  does  not  say  whether  by  the 
above  sentence  he  means  the  "in  view  of  faith"  or  not.  Now 
they  ascribe  to  the  expression  a  false  meaning,  and  Pastor  Hiigli 
points  to  the  essay  for  Dr.  W.'s  present  position.  If  Dr.  W. 
at  that  time  did  not  mean  the  "in  view  of  faith,"  then  Pastor 
Hiigli  proves  nothing,  but  only  creates  the  well-known  atmos- 
phere of  mystification.  If  he  did  mean  it,  then  he  sought  to 
conceal  the  truth  from  his  opponent  at  that  time,  since  our 
Church,  and  Gerhard  in  particular,  has  this  "Tropus."  Or  do 
they  now  pretend  that  our  Church  had  indeed  the  expression, 


Appendix.  781 

but  did  not  connect  with  it  this  false  meaning,  and  that  we  now 
do  attach  to  it  this  false  meaning?  If  so,  then  this  last  is  an 
open,  inexcusable  slander,  for  which  they,  at  the  last  day,  will 
have  to  give  an  account. 

There  is  no  open  testimony  against  the  "2d  Tropus"  in  this 
essay,  and  that  is  the  point  which  here  especially  concerns  me. 

In  general  he  says  nothing  about  the  "two  Lehrtropen,"  but 
briefly  presents  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  election  according  to 
the  Form.  Cone,  puts  the  sentence,  that  election  is  a  cause  of  our 
salvation,  etc.,  into  italics,  and  then  says:  "All  orthodox  theo- 
logians of  our  Church  agree  with  this."  As  proof  of  the  latter 
statement  he  quotes  two  passages  from  Gerhard,  in  which  Ger- 
hard also  disclaims  the  mistaken  idea  that  faith  is  the  moving 
cause  of  election.  In  a  note  to  the  last  of  these  quotations  Dr. 
W.  finally  says  the  following:  "There  is  accordingly  a  great 
difference  whether  we  say:  God  has  elected  those  concerning 
whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would  believe  and  would  remain 
in  faith;  or:  God  nas  elected  some  because  He  foresaw  that  they 
would  believe  and  that  they  would  remain  in  faith,  or  on  account 
of  their  faith.  The  former  is  entirely  correct,  according  to  Rom. 
8,  29,  the  latter  is  Pelagian."  There  we  have  Dr.  W.'s  own  utter- 
ance on  the  question  in  discussion,  and  it  is  exceedingly  im- 
portant, both  on  account  of  its  contents,  and  also  on  account  of 
the  use  he  afterwards  made  of  it  in  a  critical  position.  We  evi- 
dently have  here  the  true  "2d  Tropus,"  only  with  the  omission 
of  the  expression  "in  view,"  which  Dr.  W.  later  declared  to  be 
liable  to  misunderstanding,  concerning  which  we  are  not  now 
contending,  for  we  only  contend  for  the  substance,  which  Dr.  W. 
declared  to  be  "entirely  correct  according  to  Rom.  8,  29."  Our 
opponents  have  tried  in  the  present  controversy  so  to  distort 
the  above  sentence  as  to  make  it  mean:  Because  God  has  elected 
some  to  faith.  He  has  naturally  foreseen  that  they  will  believe! 
Such  an  evident  distortion  of  their  own  words  is  really  not  worthy 
of  being  touched  upon !  Alas,  we  must  continually  battle  against 
such  perversions.  When  we  have  driven  our  opponents  out  of 
one  corner,  they  at  once,  with  the  greatest  innocence,  sit  down  in 
another  corner.  We  must,  however,  continue  the  apparently 
useless  chase.  Well  then,  God  has  elected  those  of  whom  He 
foresaw  that  they  would  believe,  is  made  to  mean:  God  has 
elected  some  to  faith,  has  decreed:  these  shall  in  any  case  believe; 


782  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

and  He  then  foresaw  that  He  would  "execute"  this  uncondi- 
tional decree!  As  though  I  were  to  say:  The  five  wise  virgins 
who  had  oil  in  their  lamps,  were  admitted  to  the  marriage — this 
means:  out  of  ten  foolish  virgins  the  bridegroom  resolved  to 
admit  five,  to  give  them  oil  for  their  lamps  and  then  to  make  them 
wise!  The  perversion  of  the  sentence  is  all  the  more  shameful 
because  our  fathers  have  used  it  as  an  equivalent  in  meaning  for 
"in  view  of  faith" ;  it  has  a  fixed,  well-known  meaning,  which  the 
words  also  present  with  undeniable  clearness.  Whoever  knows 
this  meaning  and  still  uses  the  sentence  in  another  sense  does 
not  act  uprightly! 

But  that  Dr.  W.  did  not  so  understand  the  sentence  is  clearly 
demonstrated  by  his  appeal  to  Rom.  8,  29.  "Whom  He  did  fore- 
know," these  words  Dr.  W.  then  understood  to  mean:  "Of  whom 
He  foresaw,  that  they  would  believe  and  would  remain  in  faith." 
This  exegesis  is  irreconcilable  with  their  present  doctrine.  There- 
fore they  now  term  it  "an  unfounded  explanation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures." And  the  same  Dr.  W.  has  written  since  then  ("L.  &  W.," 
1880,  p.  353):  "It  is  indeed  written:  Whom  He  did  foreknow, 
He  also  did  predestinate,  Rom.  8,  29;  but  where  is  it  written: 
Whom  He  foresaw  as  believing  unto  the  end.  He  also  did  predes- 
tinate; and  what  creature  in  heaven  or  on  earth  has  a  right  to 
add  aught  to  the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit?"  For  the  benefit  of 
curious  Missourians  I  shall  immediately  answer  these  questions. 
Where  is  it  written,  etc.?  Answer:  in  "Lehre  und  Wehre,"  1863, 
p.  300,  in  a  note  below;  likewise  1872,  p.  132.  Again:  What 
creature  in  heaven  and  on  earth  has  the  right,  etc.?  Answer:  Dr. 
Walther  has  at  least  taken  to  himself  the  right,  and  now  takes 
the  right  to  himself  to  teach  an  election  unto  faith,  of  which  neither 
the  Scriptures  nor  the  Confessions  say  a  single  word! 

Now  this  much  is  certainly  clear,  that  Dr.  W.,  until  the  year 
1863,  professed  in  every  possible  way  the  2d  Tropus  and  only 
warded  off  from  it  the  idea  that  faith,  in  itself,  is  something  meri- 
torious; this,  however,  our  fathers  did  just  as  decidedly,  and  we 
do  the  same.     Then  Dr.  W.  had  nothing  to  "correct." 

But  he  certainly  made  a  "new  departure"  in  the  year  1868. 
Because  he  never  understood  that  our  Form.  Cone,  uses  the 
word  "election"  in  a  wider  sense  than  do  the  dogmaticians, 
namely,  as  the  Confessions  themselves  so  emphatically  state,  that 
the  whole  doctrine  of  the  counsel,  will,  and  purpose  respecting 


Appendix.  .  783 

our  redemption,  call,  justification,  and  salvation  is  summed  to- 
gether, all  which  they  then  set  forth  in  eight  successive  decrees, 
whilst  the  dogmaticians  indeed  speak  of  the  separate  decrees  in 
exactly  the  same  way  as  does  the  Form.  Cone,  and  therefore  do 
not  essentially  differ  in  doctrine,  but  understand  by  the  word 
^'election"  not  all  the  decrees,  but  only  the  last  decree — because 
Dr.  W.  did  not  recognize  this  difference  in  the  use  of  the  word, 
therefore  he  could  not  recognize  the  agreement  between  the  Con- 
fessions and  the  dogmaticians.  He  took  the  word  in  the  narrow 
sense  of  the  dogmaticians  and  still  wanted  to  compress  into  it  all 
that  the  C.  F.  included  in  the  wider  idea.  Election  is  a  cause, 
etc.,  he  understood  to  mean:  because  God  has  elected  this  one  and 
that  one,  therefore  this  one  and  the  other  are  called,  converted, 
justified,  etc.  For  this  reason  he  simply  laid  down  the  proposi- 
tion: God  has  elected  some  to  the  call  and  to  faith.  In  this  way 
he  gets  into  this  difficulty:  The  F.  C.  says,  election  creates  and 
effects  faith.  The  dogmaticians  say:  Election  presupposes 
faith  as  already  wrought.  That  is  an  irreconcilable  contradic- 
tion, one  or  the  other  must  be  fundamentally  false,  unless  the 
word  "election"  is  differently  used  in  the  two  sentences;  but  the 
latter  Dr.  W.  denies.  He  could  not,  therefore,  escape  the  con- 
clusion that  two  altogether  different  doctrines  existed  in  our 
Church.  No  doubt  it  was  hard  for  him  to  concede  that.  He  did 
not  like  to  cut  himself  loose  from  the  dogmaticians,  and  did  not 
renounce  them  in  his  controversy  with  the  Reformed  opponent, 
but  presented  the  matter  as  though  only  a  few  later  teachers 
ascribed  merit  to  faith.  But  the  difficulty  does  not  lie  there.  Dr. 
W.  cannot  bring  Gerhard's,  Leyser's,  Hutter's  and  Hunnius' 
teaching  into  harmony  with  the  Confessions.  Possibly  it  was 
just  his  defense  of  the  Lutheran  Church  against  the  attacks  of 
the  Reformed  writer  that  first  brought  the  difficulty  clearly  before 
his  consciousness.  In  the  year  1868  he  simply  rejected  the  "in 
view  of  faith."  In  the  Minutes  of  the  Northern  District  Synod, 
p.  24,  we  read:  "It  was  objected,  that  in  Eph.  1  it  is  said,  we  are 
elected  through  Christ  and  that  thus  faith  is  included,  since  Christ 
is  apprehended  through  faith,  and  that  thus  the  expression  of  the 
later  theologians,  God  has  elected  in  view  of  faith,  is  justified. 
To  this  the  reply  was  made:  There  are  no  conditions  in  God, 
but  we  ascribe  them  to  Him  when  we  say,  He  has  elected  in  view 
of  faith." 


784  A  Testimo7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

That  was  surely  a  long  step  towards  a  "new  departure,"  the 
real  fundamental  principle  of  the  stoutest  Calvinism:  "In  God 
there  are  no  conditions,"  or,  as  Dr.  W.  says  in  the  Minutes  of  '79: 
God  does  not  ask  whether  we  followed  or  not,  but  He  acts  as  He 
pleases.  "In  God  there  are  no  conditions" — that  covers  the  absO" 
lute  reprobation  of  the  Calvinist  as  well  as  the  absolute  election; 
that  makes  redemption  as  superfluous  as  faith,  and  faith  in  justifi- 
cation as  superfluous  as  faith  in  election.  That  was  a  strong  be- 
ginning, starting  from  a  purely  philosophical  proposition.  Dr.  W. 
took  his  "new  departure"  not  from  the  Scriptures,  but  from  reason.. 
We  read  further:  "To  the  question,  in  how  far  it  is  Pelagianism 
if  faith  is  regarded  as  a  middle  term,  so  that  the  motive  in  election 
is  not  faith  itself,  but  Christ  and  His  merit  embraced  through 
faith?"  (to  this  question  so  accurately  and  correctly  put)  "the- 
answer  was  given:  This  places  a  condition  in  God.  Faith  is 
indeed  a  middle  link;  but  when  one  says,  God  has  elected  in  view 
of  faith,  faith  is  not  a  middle  link  but  a  condition.  One  may  distin- 
guish ever  so  subtly,  still  a  certain  causality  is  ascribed  to  faith." 
There  the  matter  rested. 

"In  view  of  faith"  declares  a  condition,  a  certain  causality 
on  the  part  of  faith,  and  that  is  Pelagian.  Moreover,  the  thesis 
under  which  this  was  presented,  teaches  an  election  unto  the  call 
and  unto  faith.  It  reads:  "Election  is  so  related  to  this  change 
of  man  (regeneration),  that  God  by  virtue  of  His  eternal  election, 
also  in  time,  of  pure  grace,  for  Christ's  sake,  operates  efficaciously 
and  brings  about  that  His  elect — all  whom  He  has  predestinated 
unto  eternal  life — come  to  the  means  of  grace  and  are  converted." 
The  idea  of  election  "includes  1)  God's  love  for  the  elect  in  eter- 
nity; 2)  the  choosing  of  the  elect  from  among  other  men."  That 
this  conception  is  somewhat  narrower  than  that  set  forth  in  the 
eight  decrees  of  the  F.  C.  can  be  seen  with  "half  an  eye."  Start- 
ing from  this  idea,  it  was  said,  "that  everything  which  God  does 
in  time  to  accomplish  the  salvation  of  the  elect  is  only  a  result  of 
His  eternal  election"- — redemption  then  too?  What  is  left  of  the 
universal  gracious  will?  With  reference  to  Luther's  famous 
statement  in  the  preface  to  Romans  it  was  remarked:  "that  if  it 
flows  from  predestination  who  shall  believe,  there  must  also  flow 
thence  who  shall  not  believe ;  but  by  this  we  do  not  say  that  God 
does  not  want  to  save  such  persons."  Luther's  word  "predesti- 
nation" they  naturally  understand  in  the  narrow  sense  of  their- 


Appendix.  785 

"election."  Thence  flows,  "who  shall  and  who  shall  not  believe;'^ 
of  course!  If  God  has  elected  some  unto  faith,  then  it  is  finally 
decided  that  the  others  shall  not  beHeve.  But  one  should  not 
say  that  God  does  not  want  to  save  those  "that  are  not  to  believe." 
That  is  Missouri's  universal  gracious  will!  At  the  following 
meeting,  1871,  the  thesis  was  once  more  put  through  the  knead- 
ing process  and  it  was  emphatically  repeated  that  election  (N.  B. 
in  the  Missourian  sense),  is  a  cause  of  all  that  occurs  for  the  sal- 
vation of  the  elect,  and  then  it  was  once  more  emphasized  that 
"on  the  part  of  God  no  regard  was  had  to  man"  and,  of  course, 
no  regard  to  whether  man  "would  believe  and  would  remain  in 
faith" — for  this  election  takes  care  of  that.  Only  one  thing  stood 
in  the  way:  The  fact  that  some  believe  for  a  time,  then  fall  away 
and  are  lost.  They  are  evidently  not  elected  in  the  narrowest 
sense.  Whence,  then,  have  they  faith,  if  faith  flows  from  personal 
election?  The  Minutes  answer:  "As  regards  temporary  faith, 
this  is  an  efifect  of  God's  grace  through  the  Word,  but  not  of  elec- 
tion. Election  is  only  the  cause  of  faith  in  the  elect.  Therefore 
an  elect  person  either  believes  unto  the  end;  or,  if  he  has  fallen 
from  faith,  he  again  returns  thereto  before  his  end." 

There  would  thus  be  two  sorts  of  faith.  The  one  flows  from 
the  Word,  not  from  election,  and  has  not  from  the  very  outset 
the  qualification  that  it  shall  abide;  the  people  who  have  this  faith 
are  really  deceived — that  is  Missouri's  universal  gracious  will. 
That  thereby  the  Word  and  Sacraments  are  virtually  annihilated 
is  plain;  for  the  mere  word  can  merely  work  "temporary  faith," 
which  helps  nobody. 

Thus  Calvinism  stood  forth  in  fullest  bloom.  But  a  raw 
northwester  accompanied  by  a  heavy  frost  subdued  it  again  for 
a  time. 

Outside  of  the  feeble  opposition  that  manifested  itself  in  those 
two  questions  at  the  Synod  of  '68  (the  questioner,  we  remark  in 
passing,  was  Prof.  Schmidt,  who  afterwards  sounded  the  alarm), 
no  open  testimony  was  given  in  the  Missouri  Synod  against  the 
error  that  had  crept  in.  Whether  it  would  have  been  given  after- 
wards, if  things  had  not  taken  a  new  turn,  I  do  not  know.  But  in 
January,  1872,  Prof.  Fritschel,  of  Iowa,  openly  attacked  the  Mis- 
souri Synod  for  having,  with  special  reference  to  our  older  dogma- 
ticians,  branded  as  Pelagianism  the  doctrine  "that  God  elected  and 
appointed  unto  eternal  life  those  whose  faith  He  foresaw.'^    This, 


786  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

he  said,  was  a  gross  outrage  upon  our  Church  and  our  old  teach' 
ers  and  was  a  disgrace  for  the  Missouri  Synod,  because  there 
were  not  at  least  a  few  who  earnestly  lifted  their  voices  in  protest. 

Dr.  W.  replied  to  this  in  "L.  &  W.,"  1872,  p.  131  sqq.:  "All 
this  is,  to  say  nothing  worse,  simply  a  gross  perversion,  an  open 
falsehood,"  etc.  "Not  one  earthly  word"  of  it  can  be  found. 
"Our  Synod,  according  to  Prof.  Fritschel,  has  condemned  as 
Pelagianism,  with  express  reference  to  the  older  theologians,  the 
doctrine  that  God  has  elected  in  view  of  faith.  Such  an  assertion 
only  an  Iowa  professor  would  be  capable  of  making." 

I  shall  not  here  investigate  whether  Dr.  W.  justly  makes  such 
attacks  on  Prof.  F.  I  am  only  concerned  about  showing  how  he 
has  expressed  himself  on  "in  view  of  faith."  He  decidedly  denies 
that  the  Synod,  with  express  reference  to^  the  older  theologians, 
has  condemned  the  doctrine,  that  God  elected  in  view  of  faith,  as 
Pelagianism,  and  then  proceeds:  "It  is  true,  our  Synod  can  and 
will  not  appropriate  to  herself  the  'Lehrtropus'  of  our  17th  and 
18th  century  dogmaticians,  but  not  for  the  reason  that  she  thinks 
that  our  faithful  teachers  therewith  desired  to  give  expression  to 
a  false.  Pelagian  doctrine,  but  because  this  Tropus,  however  cor- 
rectly it  may  have  been  understood  by  them,  so  soon  as  it  is 
strictly  taken,  contains  something  false,  namely  the  doctrine,  that 
the  elect  are  elected  on  account  of  faith,  that  man's  faith  is  the 
ground,  the  cause,  the  condition  of  his  election  to  salvation." 
Again:  "Our  Synod  therefore  confesses  most  emphatically,  that 
the  theologians  of  our  Church  also  in  the  17th  century  have  pre- 
sented the  right  doctrine  of  predestination  and  have  maintained 
the  same  against  the  Calvinists.  One  thing  only  does  she  criti- 
cise in  the  form  of  presentation  of  this  point  on  the  part  of  those 
men;  the  expression,  God  has  elected  'in  view  of  faith'  is  an 
infelicitous  term." 

Here  we  find  as  clearly  expressed  as  it  is  possible,  what  Dr. 
W.  then  censured  in  the  2d  Tropus,  namely,  the  expression  only. 
And  this  can  be  explained;  for  the  word  "in  view,"  if  it  be  not 
more  accurately  defined,  seems  to  denote  merit  or  worthiness, 
and  that  faith  cannot  be.  This  only  Dr.  W.  censured  in  the  "2d 
Tropus,"  that  the  expression  did  not  suit:  the  matter  itself  which 
our  fathers  sought  to  convey  by  this  term  be  held  to  be  altogether 
correct.  Therefore  he  appeals  to  his  former  article  against  his 
Reformed  antagonist,  especially  to  the  passage:    that  God  has 


Appendix.  787 

elected  those  concerning  whom  He  foresaw  that  they  would  be- 
lieve and  would  remain  in  faith — is  perfectly  correct  according  to 
Rom.  8,  29,  and  he  then  adds:  "What  Prof.  Fritschel  says,  our 
Synod  attacked  as  Pelagianism,  she  has  rather  firmly  held  as 
correct  according  to  Rom.  8,  29,  and  has  confessed  it  over  against 
the  enemies  of  our  Church."  This  is,  again,  a  plain  confession 
of  the  "2d  Tropus,"  from  Dr.  W.'s  own  pen,  and  it  must  have 
the  more  weight,  because  he  puts  down  Prof.  F.,  who  had  charged 
him  with  a  deviation  from  sound  doctrine,  as  being,  on  that  ac- 
count, an  open  perverter  of  the  truth.  If  Dr.  W.'s  words  have 
any  meaning,  it  is  this:  God  saw  all  men,  how  in  time  they 
would  be  efficaciously  called  through  the  Gospel,  so  that  they, 
without  adding  anything  on  their  part,  could  and  would  be  con- 
verted and  saved  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  alone, 
if  a  part  of  them  did  not  wilfully  and  persistently  resist  the  Holy 
Spirit.  He  saw  in  reality  only  a  number  converted  and  saved. 
These  He  elected,  not  because  they  merited  it  by  their  faith,  but 
because  they  have  forgiveness  of  sins  through  faith  in  Christ. 
This  is  the  kernel  of  the  doctrine,  which  our  fathers  "have  pre- 
sented and  maintained  against  the  Calvinists,"  as  Dr.  W.  says. 

How  this  harmonizes  with  what  he  said  in  1868,  Dr.  W.  does 
not  indeed  enter  upon;  and  that,  according  to  his  understanding 
of  the  F.  C,  there  must  actually  exist  an  irreconcilable  contra- 
diction between  the  Confessions  and  the  dogmaticians,  he  says 
nothing  about  in  his  reply  to  Prof.  F. — as  little  as  he  said  anything 
about  it  over  against  his  earlier  Reformed  opponent.  Of  election 
unto  the  call  and  unto  faith  not  a  word;  of  this,  that  in  God  there 
are  no  conditions,  not  a  word. 

In  short,  over  against  this  attack,  he  silently  abandoned  the 
position  taken  in  1868  and  confessed  once  more  the  doctrine  of 
the  dogmaticians.  If  that  was  mere  poHcy,  if  he  thought  that  the 
road  for  a  "later  introduction"  was  not  yet  smooth  enough,  and 
that  he  would  have  to  continue  still  to  scatter  the  "little  seeds" 
with  caution, — then  all  the  worse  for  him;  developments  thus  far 
hardly  leave  room  for  any  other  explanation,  and  "L.  u.  W." 
suggests  this  same  explanation.  In  1877  he  began  to  move  again 
in  the  matter.  The  Iowa  men  who  had  upset  his  plan  on  the 
former  occasion,  had  in  the  meantime  been  declared  by  him  un- 
worthy of  further  reply;  if  they  had  again  raised  the  cry,  there 
would  have  ensued  a  haughty  silence  or  their  opposition  would 


788  A  Testimony  Agamst  the  False  Doctrme,  Etc. 

have  been  advertised  as  proof  for  the  truth  of  the  teaching  at- 
tacked. On  the  former  occasion  all  was  silence  in  the  Missouri 
Synod.  That  might  succeed  again;  and,  on  the  whole,  it  has  so 
far  succeeded.  Whether  everything  was  really  planned  out  in 
this  way  or  not,  this  much  is  certain.  Dr.  W.  has  publicly  pro- 
fessed the  "2d  Tropus."     To  report  in  brief: 

1)  He  has  allowed  the  2d  Tropus  to  be  presented  by  influ- 
ential men  of  the  Synod  in  his  paper,  to  be  defended  from  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Confessions,  and  permitted  the  contrary  doc- 
trine to  be  condemned. 

2)  He  has  unreservedly  recommended  almost  countless 
writings  of  our  fathers,  which  defend  this  doctrine  and  declare 
the  opposite  doctrine  to  be  false;  he  himself  has  republished  such 
writings. 

3)  He  has  in  particular  recommended  Masius'  short  account 
of  the  difference  between  the  pure  Lutheran  and  the  false  Re- 
formed doctrine  as  being  an  excellent  work;  but  in  this  book 
the  present  teaching  of  Missouri  is  rejected  as  Calvinistic,  and  the 
doctrine  which  Missouri  now  rejects  is  declared  to  be  biblical 
and  Lutheran. 

4)  He  dictated  to  us  in  the  seminary  the  following  as  the 
Calvinistic  anti-thesis:  God  has  not  elected  in  view  of  faith,  but 
unto  faith. 

5)  He  himself,  personally  and  publicly,  twice  professed 
most  emphatically  the  doctrine  of  our  dogmaticians;  and  he  de- 
clared only  the  expression  "in  view  of  faith"  to  be  unfortunate. 

What  a  fearfully  insolent  front  is  required  by  the  declara- 
tion that  the  Synod,  and  especially  Dr.  W.,  has  always  taught  as 
at  present!     On  which  side  is  the  "lie"  and  "gross  falsehood?" 

But  this  "gross  falsehood,"  as  v/ell  as  many  other  falsehoods, 
is  necessary  on  their  side.  False  doctrine  cannot  be  upheld  by 
truthful  words — that  is  certain  a  priori — and  so  the  defenders  of 
the  falsehood  must  distort  and  falsify  all  things  under  discussion. 
History  and  language  are  disfigured,  false  conclusions  drawn, 
the  motive  of  the  opponents  is  slandered,  their  own  former  words 
impudently  denied,  and  all  this  with  a  show  of  great  humility  and 
holiness,  as  though  all  the  honor  is  given  to  God,  whilst  in  reality 
they  are  only  too  proud  to  make  the  simple  confession:  Yes, 
we  have  erred! 

I  now  proceed  to  show  briefly  how  the  present  public  con- 


Appendix.  789 

troversy  broke  out.  In  regard  to  this  point  also  Missouri  en- 
deavors— Dr.  W.  again  in  the  van — to  practice  shameful  decep- 
tion. He  repeatedly  protested — in  Chicago  invoking  God's  name 
— that  he  was  guiltless  as  touching  this  controversy.  We  so- 
called  opponents  were  reproached,  because  we  should  have 
brought  the  matter  before  the  synodical  meetings  and  should 
not  at  once(?)  have  resorted  to  open  publications.  The  matter 
of  immediate  concern,  in  this  connection,  is  as  to  what  Prof. 
Schmidt  and  the  writer  have  done.  In  the  fall  of  1877  the  West- 
•ern  District  of  the  Synod  of  Missouri  took  up  the  thread  which 
the  Northern  District  had  begun  to  spin  in  1868  and  '71,  which 
Prof.  Fritschel  had  broken  ofT  and  Dr.  W.  had  temporarily 
dropped.  The  Minutes  of  '77  taught  openly  and  unequivocally 
an  election  unto  the  call  and  unto  faith,  and  this  aroused  the 
first  opposition — privately,  not  publicly.  The  opinion  seems  to 
prevail  quite  generally,  that  the  opposition  came  originally  from 
Prof.  Schmidt,  and  that  I  from  attachment  to  him  personally, 
followed  him.  That  would  not  change  the  matter  itself;  however, 
the  prevalent  opinion  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  truth.  Fur- 
thermore, it  is  said,  Prof.  Schmidt  was  so  embittered  because  he 
-was  defeated  in  an  election  at  the  synodical  meeting  in  May,  1878, 
that  he  attacked  Missouri  in  revenge.  I  only  mention  this  here 
briefly,  in  order  to  brand  it  once  more  as  a  shameless  slander; 
that  it  is  slander,  we  have  long  since  proved  and  have  publicly 
called  on  the  authors  of  it  either  to  refute  our  proof  or  to  take 
back  the  charge.  They  have  so  far  done  neither.  Now  the  true 
course  of  events  is  as  follows:  Soon  after  New  Year,  1878,  I 
read  the  '77  Minutes  and  found,  to  my  horror,  that  the  doctrine 
it  presented  was  not  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  election.  It  is 
true.  Dr.  W.  does  not  there  say  openly  and  honestly  that  all  our 
fathers  erred — on  the  contrary,  he  quotes  from  them  profusely, 
as  though  he  found  himself  in  fullest  harmony  with  them;  his  own 
remarks,  however,  and  his  explanation  of  the  important  Scrip- 
ture passages  show  a  decidedly  Calvinistic  coloring,  so  that  this 
■one  Report  brings  to  light  Dr.  W.'s  whole  course  of  equivocation 
in  the  doctrine  of  election.  After  having  sought  in  vain  for 
months  to  get  a  biblical-Lutheran  meaning  out  of  Dr.  W.'s  false 
propositions,  I  laid  the  matter  before  my  District  President,  Pas- 
tor Strasen,  about  the  end  of  March,  and  then  learned  for  the  first 
time  that  Prof.  Schmidt  also  did  not  agree  with  the  Report  and 


790  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

had  indicated  this  to  leading  men  of  his  (the  Norwegian)  Synod. 
(The  synodical  convention,  which  is  reported  to  have  furnished 
Prof.  Schmidt  the  motive  for  his  antagonism,  was  held  the  last 
of  May!)  I  did  not  urge  Pres.  Strasen  to  give  an  immediate  ex- 
pression of  his  opinion,  but  only  presented  and  gave  reasons  for 
my  scruples,  and  asked  him  to  examine  the  matter.  When,  some 
time  after,  I  again  spoke  with  him  on  the  sbject,  I  found  that  he 
had  reached  the  same  conclusion  as  myself.  In  the  course  of 
the  whole  year  nothing  more  was  done  in  the  affair,  excepting 
that  I  again  and  again  examined  Dr.  W.'s  erroneous  propositions 
in  the  light  of  Scripture  and  Confessions,  diligently  studied  also 
our  old  Lutheran  theologians,  as  far  as  I  had  access  to  their 
writings,  and  conversed  almost  weekly  with  Pres.  Strasen  re- 
garding the  matter.  At  Easter  (before  that  synodical  meeting) 
I  spoke  with  Prof.  Schmidt  on  this  subject.  From  that  time  on 
until  October,  1879,  we  three,  Pres.  Strasen,  Prof  Schmidt,  and  I, 
frequently  discussed  the  matter  from  all  points  of  view,  and  we 
were  agreed  in  our  opinion  on  the  Minutes.  At  Christmas,  1878, 
Prof.  Schmidt  was  again  with  us,  on  a  visit,  and  was  then  deter- 
mined to  set  forth  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  election  in  the  "Lu- 
theran Standard"  (for  which  paper  he  had  already  written  much 
on  other  subjects),  but  without  any  attack  on  Missouri;  he  de- 
sired only  to  present  the  doctrine,  since  his  conscience  would  not 
let  him  keep  total  silence  in  the  face  of  error.  Pres.  Strasen  and 
I  advised  him  against  this  course,  and  urged  him  to  speak  pri- 
vately with  the  St.  Louis  men.  After  being  urged  to  the  same 
effect  by  men  of  his  own  Synod,  he  did  this.  In  consequence  a 
colloquium  between  Dr.  W.  and  Prof.  Sch.  was  arranged  and 
was  held  in  Columbus,  July,  1879.  Dr.  W.  broke  ofT  the  discus- 
sion after  a  day  and  a  half,  with  the  excuse  that  he  had  no  more 
time.  However,  a  continuation  of  the  colloquium  was  agreed 
upon  for  the  following  year,  and  both  sides  were  to  have  several 
representatives.  Dr.  W.  asked  Prof.  S.  if  he  would  refrain  from 
writing  until  .that  time,  and  received  the  answer:  That  depends 
on  what  position  Synod  takes  on  this  subject  at  its  fall  meeting. 
(The  Synod  in  the  spring  of  '78  was  a  general  convention  and  did 
not  discuss  this  matter.)  One  thesis  of  the  year  '77  remained  to 
be  discussed  by  the  Western  District  and  Prof.  S.  repeatedly  ex- 
pressed the  hope  to  me  that  Dr.  W.  would  yield  in  so  far  at  the 
fall  meeting  of  '79  as  to  give  us  satisfaction,  and  that  the  collo- 


Appendix.  791 

quium  for  the  summer  of  1880  would  be  superfluous.  So  remote 
from  his  mind  was  the  thought  at  that  time  of  an  open  and  direct 
attack  on  Dr.  W!  And  this  was  more  than  a  year  after  the  synod- 
ical  convention  which  was  represented  as  having  given  occasion 
to  S.  for  making  open  warfare!  But  even  if  Dr.  W.  had  not 
yielded,  if  he  had  only  not  dragged  the  controversy  before  the 
public  and  tried  to  cripple  Schmidt's  opposition,  S.  would  have 
waited  with  his  writing  until  all  private  negotiations  had  proved 
fruitless. 

I.  for  my  part,  sent  a  letter  in  May,  1879,  to  the  general  pres- 
ident of  Synod,  Past.  Schwan,  in  which  I  fully  presented  my 
objections  to  the  '77  Minutes,  and  openly  declared  that  I  found 
in  the  Report  "tendencies  towards  Calvinism."  I  begged  him 
to  advise  me  how  I  should  act.  In  reply  to  my  letter  Pres. 
Schwan  put  the  question  whether  it  would  not  be  best  for  him 
to  send  my  letter  to  Dr.  W.  in  order  that  the  latter  might  "express 
himself  more  fully  concerning  the  matter."  To  this  I  gave  my 
consent,  with  the  remark  that  perhaps  it  would  be  better  to 
wait  until  the  commencement  of  vacation,  because  Dr.  W.  would 
then  probably  have  more  time.  In  the  meanwhile  the  meeting 
of  our  Northwestern  District  took  place,  where  I  communicated 
orally  with  Pres.  Schwan  and  asked  him,  whether,  in  his  opinion, 
I  had  written  in  an  unbecoming  manner —  in  which  case  I  would 
ask  him  to  return  the  letter  in  order  that  I  might  make  any  nec- 
essary amendments!  He  answered:  "Not  at  all,  my  dear  All- 
wardt."  He  said,  that  if  the  matter  were  not  otherwise  adjusted, 
I  should  have  to  communicate  with  Dr.  W.,  and  this  I  declared 
myself  ready  to  do,  if  it  were  necessary.  I  had  now  attacked 
the  Western  Minutes  and  feared  that  I  might  be  confronted  by 
the  objection,  that  we  had  had  the  same  subject  in  the  Northern 
Minutes  of  1868  and  1871;  and  why  had  I  not  first  attacked 
these?  I  therefore  concluded  to  lay  the  matter  before  the  pas- 
toral conference,  which  was  held  on  the  day  following  the  close 
of  synod.  Without  mentioning  the  Western  Minutes,  I  quoted 
a  sentence  from  the  Northern  Minutes  of  '71  and  declared  that 
I  held  it  to  be  erroneous,  and  begged  conference  to  express  itself. 
When  I  desired  to  support  my  objections  briefly  from  the  For- 
mula of  Concord,  I  was  prevented  by  loud  protests.  Let  it  be 
remembered :  we  are  upbraided  for  not  having  brought  the  matter 
first  of  all  before  conferences  and  synods,     tiere  I  laid  it  before 


792  A   Testinio7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

a  conference,  where  no  layman  was  present  and  I  was  not  allowed 
to  conclude  my  speech!  Pres.  Schwan  had  already  leit,  this 
reproach  therefore  does  not  strike  him.  I  then  declared  that 
if  I  were  not  permitted  to  speak  further,  I  should  have  to  desist; 
"but  that  the  matter  must  some  time  be  dealt  with,  since  I  did 
not  agree  with  the  doctrine  set  forth.  It  was  then  resolved  that 
I  present  in  writing  my  objections  to  the  sentence  in  question, 
and  that  within  four  weeks  I  should  send  this  paper  to  a  number 
of  the  pastors,  who  were  to  see  to  its  further  circulation,  and 
in  the  fall  the  matter  should  be  considered  at  the  pastoral  con- 
ference. One  member  offered  to  undertake  the  defence  of  the 
sentence  attacked,  at  that  conference.  All  this  took  place.  The 
defender  in  question  had  secretly  sent  my  criticisms  to  Dr.  W. 
and  had  sought  from  him  weapons  for  the  conflict:  which  I 
mention  for  the  reason  that  Dr.  W.  now  also  learned  from  this 
source,  what  was  the  matter  under  consideration.  It  is  not 
within  the  scope  of  my  plan  to  report  fully  concerning  the  pro- 
ceedings of  that  conference;  I  would  only  mention,  that  I  did 
not  there  stand  alone;  and  beside  those  who  with  me  openly 
accepted  the  truth,  many  expressed  themselves  privately  to  me 
as  being  grateful  that  I  had  attacked  the  subject,  for  they  had 
long  been  disquieted  on  this  account  —  now  they  have  all,  indeed, 
become  quieted.  —  No  agreement  was  reached  at  this  time.  My 
worthy  opponent,  who  had  offered  to  defend  the  Calvinistic 
proposition,  frequently  answered  me  with  the  words:  "Rev.  Dr. 
W.  writes,"  etc.  Another  one  proved  the  election  to  the  call 
and  unto  faith  from  Gerhard's  Loci!  From  Gerhard?  How  was 
that  possible?  All  very  easy  and  simple!  Gerhard  quotes  Cal- 
vinistic statements  and  refutes  them.  Thus  in  §  174:  "7.  Argu- 
ment" (of  the  Calvinists).  "The  call  and  justification  are  effects 
of  election,  Rom.  8,  29.  30;  faith  likewise,  for  it  is  dependent 
on  the  call;  and  consequently  faith  is  not  a  cause  of  election." 
He  quoted  this  statement  word  for  word,  as  though  it  were  Ger- 
hard's proposition;  and  when  I  answered:  that  is  a  Calvinistic 
proposition  which  Gerhard  refutes,  he  most  emphatically  dis- 
puted my  reply.  Fortunately,  I  had  the  volume  in  question 
at  my  lodgings;  I  went  immediately  to  get  it.  When  I  returned, 
the  artful  secretary  said:  "It's  no  longer  necessary,  Allwardt, 
we  have  already  gone  on  further."  They  did  not  want  their 
stupidity  exposed  to  shame.     I  thus  saw  at  once,  that  at  least 


Appendix.  793 

some  of  my  reverend  brethren  were  no  longer  able  to  distinguish 
Calvinistic  from  Lutheran  statements.  But  there  were  very  few 
of  them  as  yet  on  this  occasion.  It  was  resolved  to  continue 
the  discussion  the  following  year.  I  too  was  satisfied  with  this 
■arrangement. 

In  the  same  week,  however,  in  which  we  held  this  confer- 
ence in  Oshkosh,  the  Western  District  met  in  St.  Louis.  This 
was  toward  the  end  of  September,  1879.  While  Prof.  S.  and  I, 
as  well  as  others,  who  knew  about  it,  hoped  that  Dr.  W.  would 
there,  at  least  to  some  extent,  satisfactorily  explain  himself,  but 
in  no  case  expected  that  in  our  absence  he  would  touch  upon 
our  objections,  this  last  was  the  very  thing  he  did,  and  in  a  way 
which  I  would  have  thought  absolutely  impossible.  Whilst  he 
had  broken  off  the  colloquium  in  Columbus  and  had  agreed  with 
his  opponent  on  a  second  meeting  for  the  following  year,  and 
had  desired  of  Prof.  S.  to  make  no  public  attack  until  that  time, 
and  whilst  he  had  not  yet  answered  a  syllable  to  my  letter,  which 
had  been  handed  to  him  by  the  general  president,  yet  he  criti- 
cised our  arguments  before  that  convention,  distorted  them  most 
monstrously,  made  them  appear  ridiculous,  and  heaped  upon 
us  the  most  hateful  names  imaginable.  We  are  proclaimed 
rationalists,  synergists.  Pelagians,  followers  not  only  of  the  papists 
in  general,  but  also  and  in  particular  of  the  sly  and  crafty  Bellar- 
min  (a  Jesuit) !  But,  before  1  pursue  this-  further,  I  must  show 
that  we  indeed  —  I,  to  be  sure,  less  than  Prof.  S.  —  were  meant, 
for  our  names  were,  of  course,  not  mentioned,  and  this  fact  was 
afterwards  appealed  to.  But  we  knew  it  nevertheless,  and  were 
just  as  certain  of  it  as  though  our  names  had  been  mentioned; 
and  the  whole  cowardly,  deceitful  business  appears  the  more 
disgraceful,  because  our  names  were  not  mentioned  in  order 
that  it  might  be  denied  that  we  had  been  meant!  Now  for  the 
proof:  In  the  Minutes  (1879)  mention  is  chiefly  made  of  the 
absolute,  infallible  certainty  of  the  elect  concerning  final  perse- 
verance in  faith,  and  in  this  connection  certain  persons  who 
deny  this  "certainty"  are  referred  to,  i.  e.  derided  from  start  to 
finish.  Such  an  absolute  certainty  I  had  denied  in  my  letter, 
and  Prof.  S.  in  the  July  colloquium  had  first  of  all  directed  his 
attack  upon  this  point.  No  one  beside  us  had  attacked  Missouri 
respecting  this  matter,  because  Missouri  had  not  come  out  in 
this   way   with   its   fanatical   certainty  till   1877.      Missouri    had 


794  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

already  been  attacked  by  Iowa  on  account  of  the  doctrine  of 
absolute  election,  but  not  on  account  of  this  certainty.  In  this 
point  Missouri  had  no  declared  "opponents"  except  ourselves. 
Could  there  then  be  any  doubt  as  to  Dr.  W.'s  having  us  in  mind? 
Besides,  on  pp.  23,  24  and  53  it  is  clearly  indicated  that  an  attack 
on  the  Minutes  of  '77  is  being  repelled.  This  could  mean  no 
opposition  excepting  ours.  On  p.  72  we  read:  "Satan  would 
gain  entrance  among  us";  "among  us,"  one  does  not  speak 
in  this  way  of  opponents  from  without!  Again,  the  arguments 
that  we  had  employed  are  considered  in  the  Minutes  and,  in 
part,  derided.  We  had  directed  attention  to  the  many  warnings 
of  Holy  Scripture  which  would  have  no  sense  if  the  elect  were 
already  absolutely  certain  of  perseverance.  The  Minutes  refer 
to  this  times  innumerable;  e.  g.  p.  97:  "It  is  said,  if  each  Chris- 
tian should,  according  to  God's  Word,  work  out  his  salvation 
with  fear  and  trembling,  he  shoidd  work  it  out  with  the  thought: 
You  can,  perhaps  wull,  be  lost,  therefore  strive  earnestly,  that 
you  may  not  be  damned;  for  everything  depends  on  your  work- 
ing aright."  (Observe  here  the  outrageous  distortion!  Here 
already  Dr.  W.  manufactured  the  shaft,  which  the  entire  host 
Vv'ith  deafening  clamour  now  hurls  against  us.  You  are  syner- 
gists and  Pelagians!)  We  had  said  that  one  must  distinguish 
between  a  Christian's  certainty  regarding  his  present  state  of 
grace  and  the  certainty  of  future  perseverance;  the  first  is  abso- 
lute and  infallible,  the  latter  conditional,  a  "joyful  hope."  One 
becomes  absolutely  certain,  at  the  moment  of  death,  that  he 
will  not  apostatize.  In  regard  to  this  we  read  p.  73:  "Our 
opponents  say:  Only  in  the  hour  of  death  can  you  be  certain 
of  this  salvation."  (Of  perseverance  in  salvation  we  say,  of 
actual  election;  for  we  are  already  saved  in  hope,  Rom.  8,  24, 
and  are  absolutely  certain  of  that  also;  but  it  is  uncertain  who 
will  finally  be  found  so  remaining,  as  Dr.  Luther  says.  Dr.  W. 
emits  this  our  distinction,  and  accuses  us  of  saying:  Only  in  the 
hour  of  death  can  you  be  certain  of  this  salvation!  And  then 
he  adds  this  fine  sophistry:)  "If  we  are  to  wait  for  the  Lord 
each  hour,  then  ought  we  to  be  ready  each  hour  for  death.  But 
if  I  may  not  now  be  certain  of  my  salvation,  but  only  after- 
wards (!!),  then  those,  who  so  teach,  postpone  till  a  distant  time 
the  coming  of  the  Lord."  Can  there  be  a  more  wicked,  and 
at  the  same  time  a  more   stupid,   perversion   of  an   opponent's 


Appendix.  795 

arguments,  than  this  specimen  from  the  Minutes  of  '77?  The 
Jesuits  alone  in  their  butchery  of  some  of  Luther's  sentences, 
have  perpetrated  something  similar.  To  prove  that  faith  does 
not  flow  from  election  (when  this  word  is  employed  in  its  nar- 
rowest sense),  I  pointed  to  the  fact  that  the  non-elect  often  pos- 
sessed faith  for  a  long  time.  As  the  circumstance,  that  unbe- 
lievers also  receive  the  body  and  the  blood  of  the  Lord  in  the 
Holy  Supper  (v.  1  Cor.  11),  incontrovertibly  proves  that  the 
Lord's  body  and  blood  are  not  received  in  a  spiritual  manner 
only,  through  faith  (as  Calvin  would  have  it),  since  unbelievers 
do  not  have  faith,  so  the  circumstance,  that  the  non-elect  believe 
temporarily  proves  conclusively  that  faith  does  not  flow  from 
election,  since  temporary  believers  are  not  elected.  This  argu- 
ment is  touched  upon  on  pp.  65  and  84,  where,  at  the  same 
time,  one  can  see  how  Dr.  W.  evades  the  force  of  the  argument. 
Both  of  us  had  appealed  to  Chemnitz'  Examen.  On  p.  54  we 
find  the  answer:  "Even  so  Chemnitz,  to  whom  some  would 
appeal,  regards  the  matter."  Shall  I  furnish  more  proofs  that 
Dr.  W.  intended  us?  And  yet  he  wanted  to  appear  innocent 
in  Chicago  and  insultingly  appealed  to  the  fact  that  on  ''this 
(his)  side  the  mention  of  names  had  studiously  been  avoided." 
Minutes,  p.  106.  Yes,  truly,  this,  but  only  this,  he  had  "stud- 
iously avoided,"  avoided  it  there  too,  as  we  find  p.  Ill:  "He 
(Dr.  W.)  would  not  mention  that  person  by  name,  in  order  not 
to  uncover  his  shame"!  What  forbearance!  What  "Christian 
love"!  He  had  already  hurled  his  lance  so  often  at  Prof. 
Schmidt  that  every  member  of  the  conference  knew  whom  he 
meant;  but  he  did  not  mention  "that  person"  by  name!  That 
sort  of  forbearance  we  had  experienced  in  the  Minutes  of  '79! 
Since  I  repeatedly  directed  attention  to  the  fact  that  they  had 
first  made  a  public  attack  on  us  (p.  109  f.).  Dr.  W.  said :  "How 
little  appeared  there  (Minutes  of  '79),  that  could  be  taken  per- 
sonally! only  a  little  morsel,  as  it  were  the  extreme  tip  of  the 
finger,  concerning  which  the  speaker  knew  that  the  brother  (I) 
had  said  it."  "Of  course  another  person  was  more  emphatically 
opposed  in  the  Minutes,  but  most  of  the  brethren,  even  in  the 
Western  District,  did  not  know  who  was  meant,"  p.  111.  There 
we  have  a  confession  from  Dr.  W.  himself  that  he  meant  us  — 
myself  only  slightly,  more  decidedly  another  person.  The  sub- 
terfuge that   "most  of  the   brethren"   did   not   know   who   were 


796  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

meant,  affords  him  no  help;  for  it  is  a  ridiculously  empty  make- 
shift. When  Dr.  W.  during  the  whole  session  of  a  synod  attacks 
such  well-described  opponents,  then,  indeed,  many  would  remain 
in  ignorance  as  to  who  was  meant!  Three  months  previous,  after 
the  conclusion  of  the  Synodical  Conference,  the  colloquium  in 
Columbus  took  place,  and  members  of  at  least  three  different 
synods  were  among  the  auditors.  No  attempt  at  secrecy  had 
been  made.  Could  such  a  thing  have  been  kept  secret  —  Dr. 
W.  attacked  by  a  member  of  the  Synodical  Conference  —  could 
such  a  thing  have  been  kept  secret!  Furthermore,  it  is  only 
too  well  known  that,  in  private  circles,  he  spoke  quite  freely 
about  other  persons;  I  learned  in  the  summer  that  he  had 
spoken  at  a  children's  festival  in  St.  Louis  concerning  Schmidt's 
opposition,  and  now,  at  the  time  of  the  synodical  convention, 
only  a  few  brethren  knew  to  whom  he  had  alluded!  Dr.  W. 
would  have  it  appear  that  he  hurled  all  those  thunderbolts  into 
the  air!  If  it  were  true,  the  malicious  procedure  would  still 
be  only  shame  for  him! 

And  now  a  few  specimens  of  the  way  in  which  Dr.  W.  at 
that  meeting  "slightly"  took  notice  of  me,  but  more  emphatically 
paid  his  respects  to  that  "other  person."  Some  samples  have 
already  been  exhibited:  "Satan  would  gain  entrance  among  us." 
P.  72.  "God  has  revealed  to  us  a  religion  which  shows  how 
we  can  reach  heaven;  and  here  they  come  and  remove  one  of 
the  most  important  doctrines,  a  doctrine  full  of  comfort,  from 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  Woe  unto  him  that  does  this."  P.  52. 
"May  the  devil  requite  you."  P.  32.  "And  we  miserable  men 
would  not  believe  that?  We  would  say:  it  might  displease  God, 
if  I  should  hope  to  be  saved,  therefore  I  will  rather  believe  that 
I  am  going  to  hell,  then  I  shall  be  a  better  Christian."  P.  69. 
''Then  faith  would  be  doubt,  then  it  would  not  be  said,  he  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  doubteth 
and  is  baptized."  P.  73.  "Delay  the  Lord's  coming  until  a  dis- 
tant time."  P.  73.  "Paul  says,  if  we  had  not  this  hope,  we 
should  be  the  most  miserable  of  all  creatures,  and  now  they 
come  to  us  and  tell  us:  No;  this  hope  you  dare  not  have,  every- 
thing may  turn  out  otherwise."  P.  90.  "According  to  our  oppo- 
nents we  ought  to  believe  that  it  is  still  an  open  question  whether 
we  will  reach  heaven  or  hell."  91.  "We  should  cling  to  the  con- 
fession of  hope;  but  this  is  a  fine  confession  .  .  *.  when  the  world 


Appoidix.  797 

asks  me:  Will  you  with  your  religion  reach  heaven?  and  I 
answer:  That  I  do  not  know."  95.  "Whoever  teaches  me  that 
I  should  doubt  in  this  matter,  immediately  plunges  me  into 
despair;  for  he  says:  you  must  rest  your  hope  on  yourself." 
P.  96.  "They  are  bHnd  Pharisees  who  speak  so."  P.  111. 
"Perseverance  is  a  fruit  of  the  assistance  which  God  furnishes 
the  elect.  .  .  .  He  whose  honor  is  injured  too  much  by  that, 
may  see  to  it  how  he  will  get  to  heaven."  P.  118.  "This  is 
nothing  but  the  voice  of  the  serpent."  P.  90.  "It  appears  as 
though  these  were  clear-headed  men  and  humble  spirits  who 
speak  in  this  way,  but  it  only  appears  so."  P.  75.  "These  people 
want  to  rap  us  over  the  knuckles  for  having  such  a  doctrine  of 
election;  but  they  have  no  doctrine  of  election  at  all."  P.  76. 
"The  apostles  were  not  such  rationalists  as  they  who  think  the 
certainty  of  election  renders  watchfulness  unnecessary."  P.  10-i. 
"What  a  bad  sign  it  is  that  our  opponents  have  not  only  the 
papists  as  supporters  of  their  doctrine,  but  also  such  a  sly  and 
crafty  fellow  as  is  this  Bellarmin."  P.  101.  (Perhaps  the  gen- 
tlemen do  not  know  that  the  Jesuit  Bellarmin  was  a  Calvinist 
in  the  doctrine  of  election  —  of  about  the  same  stamp  as  them- 
selves; he  denied  the  foresight  of  faith,  and  denied  that  we  know 
a  cause  why  God  elects  some  in  preference  to  others.  God  indeed 
has  a  reason,  but  we  do  not  know  it.  That  is  a  familiar  tune 
to-day.  As  regards  certainty,  he  denied  above  all  the  certainty 
of  the  present  state  of  grace,  which  we,  as  Dr.  W.  well  enough 
knows,  do  not  do;  we,  therefore,  have  nothing  in  common  with 
the  Jesuits,  the  St.  Louis  men  hold  that  first  point  in  common 
with  them,  and,  in  addition,  the  noble  gift  of  meanly  distorting 
an  opponent's  words.)  P.  101  we  read:  "Whoever,  therefore, 
would  believe  God's  Word  should  come  to  us;  he  that  would 
make  the  matter  plausible  to  his  reason,  should  resort  to  those 
who  deny  the  certainty  of  election.  But  what  will  befall  those 
who  make  God  a  liar!"  Here  already  Dr.  W.  summons  men 
to  take  sides! 

That  was  the  answer  I  received  to  my  private  letter  and  at 
the  same  time  it  was  the  continuation  of  the  colloquium  with 
Prof.  Schmidt!  How,  now,  is  it  possible  for  Dr.  W.  and  his 
associates  to  accuse  us  of  having  disturbed  the  public  peace,, 
without  having  first  sought  in  an  orderly  way  to  reach  an  agree- 
ment!    We  are  the  ones  that  sought  to  hold  private  negotiations 


798  A  Testimo7iy  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

and  Dr.  W.  broke  them  off  and  caused  them  to  be  postponed 
to  so  distant  a  time,  so  that  he  could  in  the  meanwhile  prepare 
and  educate  his  own  followers,  and  by  means  of  the  Minutes 
gain  the  entire  Synod  for  his  Calvinistic  extravagance,  and  so 
abuse  Prof.  Schmidt's  name  that  afterwards  he  could  accomplish 
nothing  against  Dr.  W.  As  regards  the  first  point,  Dr.  W. 
said  already  in  Columbus:  They  would  manage  to  turn  tilLthen 
all  those  in  the  Synod  who  sided  with  Prof.  Schmidt;  and  they 
have  turned  them  nearly  all.  Dr.  W.  is  not  troubled  by  a  lack 
of  means  for  convincing  others!  As  regards  the  second  point, 
the  above  extracts  from  the  Minutes  furnish  enough  testimony 
that  he  tried  in  every  possible  way  to  make  our  opposition 
malodorous.  And  before  the  Columbus  disputation  we  learned 
here  in  Wisconsin  that  they  were  of  the  opinion  in  St.  Louis 
that  Schmidt  had  rendered  himself  an  impossibility  as  a  theo- 
logical professor!  Naturally,  that  was  Dr.  W.'s  wish  and  object, 
which  he  pursued  vmtil  Profs.  Loy,  Stellhorn  and  others  openly 
gave  testimony  against  Calvinism.  From  then  on  he  turned 
against  these,  in  order,  if  possible,  to  annihilate  them  also.  But 
up  to  this  time  he  had  incessantly  persecuted  Prof.  S.  In  Chi- 
cago he  overwhelmed  him  with  abuse  and  made  the  gravest 
direct  accusations  against  him.  Schmidt  was  present  as  an 
auditor;  twice  he  asked  for  the  floor,  but  it  was  not  granted 
him. 

Dr.  W.  was  permitted  to  abuse  and  accuse,  without  furnish- 
ing any  proof,  without  giving  his  opponent  opportunity  to  reply. 
He  employed  the  same  cowardly  and  cunning  method  of  warfare 
at  the  Synod  of  '79.  He  had  broken  off  the  colloquium,  although 
it  had  been  appointed  nearly  half  a  year  before,  so  that  he  could 
arrange  everything  and  have  abundant  time.  But  he  would  have 
had  to  furnish  proofs  there  for  his  false  doctrine  before  an  oppo- 
nent who  understood  how  to  distinguish  true  from  specious  proofs. 
The  new  doctrine  was  not  yet  naturalized  and  the  disputation  with 
Schmidt,  if  a  thorough  one,  might  prove  disastrous  to  the  new 
movement.  Thus  che  important  matter  had  to  be  delayed  a 
whole  year.  Dr.  W.  had  first  of  all  to  work  up  the  Synod  at  the 
fall  meeting,  and  in  advance  he  wanted  Schmidt  to  remain  away. 
The  proceedings  of  that  convention  obliged  us  to  come  out  pub- 
licly against  the  error  —  not  because  we  had  to  defend  ourselves 
personally  against  Walther's  attacks,  O  no — but  because  it  would 


Appendix.  799 

have  been  unprincipled  to  allow  the  false  doctrine  to  have  the 
field  for  so  long  a  time.  God's  Word  wants  error  rebuked  at 
once;  in  the  case  of  error  publicly  proclaimed  it  does  not  pre- 
scribe preliminary  private  negotiations,  because  in  the  meantime 
the  error  could  enjoy  undisturbed  and  luxuriant  growth.  If  we 
had  immediately  made  an  open  attack,  on  the  Minutes  of  '77, 
nobody  could  rightly  have  charged  us  with  sin  on  that  account. 
Since  we  did  not  do  this,  but  first  admonished  the  deceivers  pri- 
vately, even  permitting  ourselves  to  be  put  ofif  a  year  longer,  and 
since  Dr.  W.  so  evidently  misused  this  our  weakness,  in  order  that 
he  might  once  more  contend  for  his  error,  disfigure  our  doctrine, 
distort  and  deride  our  proofs,  render  our  persons  suspicious  and 
accuse  us  of  heresy — we  would  have  been  not  only  unprincipled 
men,  but  must  have  been  fools,  if  we  had  still  continued  silent. 
Paul  at  once  rebuked  the  great  apostle  Peter  publicly  "before 
them  all"  (Gal.  2,  12-14),  when  Peter  had  taught  no  false  doctrine, 
but  out  of  fear  of  men  had  abandoned  a  part  of  Christian  freedom, 
and  thus  had  only  tacitly  denied  the  pure  doctrine!  Dr.  W.  had 
openly  promulgated  a  false  doctrine,  by  which,  according  to  our 
own  firm  conviction,  and  that  of  our  whole  Church,  the  Gospel 
in  its  deepest  foundation  had  -been  attacked;  he  had  postponed 
private  negotiations  and  procured  time  for  himself  so  that  he 
might  in  advance  publicly  disgrace  us.  As  soon  as  I  had  read 
the  Minutes,  it  was  my  firm  conviction  that  we  must  now  answer 
publicly,  and  I  was  determined  to  do  this,  and  announced  the 
same  on  December  3  to  Pres.  Strasen — I  did  not  as  yet  want  to 
attack  them  unawares,  but  to  give  them  time  to  yield.  But — to 
think  of  such  a  thing  in  the  case  of  Missouri!  Grossly  to  pervert 
their  former  words,  or  simply  to  deny  them  shamelessly,  of  such 
degradation  they  are  capable;  but  to  confess  honorably:  we 
have  erred — nobody  need  expect  of  Missouri.  Moreover,  Mis- 
souri was  at  that  time  so  drunk  with  victory,  that  it  scarcely  feared 
an  open  attack — either  that  such  an  attack  would  be  made,  or 
if  made  that  it  would  do  them  any  harm.  Had  Pres.  Strasen,  who 
up  to  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  Minutes  had  agreed  with 
me,  but  had  now  suddenly  "turned"  and  had  most  obediently  and 
also  suddenly  announced  this  fact  at  headquarters — had  he  not 
likewise  reported  that  the  new  Minutes  did  not  overawe  me? 
In  the  beginning  of  January  I  said  to  him  again  that  I  would 
write  against  the  Minutes,  and  that  I  was  already  engaged  in  the 


800  A  Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctririe,  Etc. 

work.  He  now  urgently  begged  me  not  to  do  this,  but  rather 
go  to  St.  Louis  and  "deal  with  Walther,"  yea,  he  finally  offered 
to  go  with  me.  If  he  had  taken  orderly  steps  for  the  adjustment 
of  the  difficulty,  I  would  have  consented.  But  after  Dr.  W.'s- 
mean  and  cowardly  procedure  at  the  meeting  of  Synod,  to  pre- 
sent myself  before  him  in — humble  submission,  was  as  far  from 
my  mind  as  a  visit  to  eternal  Rome.  If  there  had  been  only  per- 
sonal disputes,  the  matter  would  have  been  dififerent.  But  one 
of  the  highest  rights  in  the  Church  was  at  stake,  the  right  of  every 
Christian  to  protest  against  false  doctrine  and  to  be  heard  at  leasts 
before  judgment  is  pronounced.  To  Dr.  W.'s  great  learning  and 
eloquence  I  could  oppose  nothing  except  my  plain  testimony  for 
the  truth;  standing  against  him  I  would  be  at  disadvantage  in  a. 
hundred  different  ways.  That  he  was  not  satisfied  with  this  pre- 
eminence, but  had  employed  such  violent  measures,  made  me  ex- 
ceedingly indignant,  and  I  was  determined  now  to  take  the  course- 
which  promised  me  the  greatest  success;  namely,  to  reply  pub- 
licly to  the  heresy  that  had  been  publicly  promulgated  and  defended 
by  craft  and  sophistry.  When  afterwards  oral  negotiations  were 
undertaken,  I  was  found  in  my  place  and  refrained,  during  these 
negotiations  as  \n€\\.  as  in  my  essays,  from  all  insulting  utterances; 
for  I  always  entertained  the  hope  that  Dr.  W.  would  yield.  This 
has  not  occurred.  How  our  opponents  in  Chicago  and  Fort 
Wayne,  and  since  then,  defended  their  cause,  yes  theirs — not 
God's — to  state  this  at  length  would  require  too  much  time  and 
space.  God  willing,  this  shall  yet  be  done,  in  order  that  unpre- 
judiced people  may  obtain,  at  least  in  time  to  come,  a  just  opinion 
of  the  present  controversy.  Surely,  even  though  it  be  slowly,, 
the  Church  in  time  always  gains  clear  insight  into  the  contro- 
versies through  which  it  has  passed.  The  confusion  was  so  great 
at  the  time  of  the  first  crypto-Calvinistic  controversies  that  the 
most  sincere  people  did  not,  to  a  large  extent,  know  who  was 
right.  But  long  before  the  end  of  the  century  everything  was  as 
clear  as  the  sun,  and  the  men  who  had  been  derided  as  wranglers 
and  disturbers  of  the  peace,  who  had  been  deposed  and  perse- 
cuted, stood  forth  gloriously  justified.  We  cannot  and  will  not 
set  ourselves  up  as  their  equals;  but  we  have  learned  from  them 
that  one  need  not  despair  of  the  victory  of  truth. 

Here  we  have  desired  to  prove  only  that  we  do  not  bear  the 
guilt  of  the  public  outbreak  of  this  controversy,  but  that  the  guilty 


Appendix.  801 

ones  are  Dr.  W.  and  his  devoted  followers ;  he  has  tried  to 
smuggle  in  the  new  doctrine,  and  when  he  was  privately  ad- 
monished by  us,  he  replied  publicly ;  only  then  did  we  follow  him 
into  publicity.  What  the  condition  of  his  conscience  was,  when 
in  Chicago  he  cast  the  blame  upon  us,  urged  us  to  repentance, 
pointed"  us  to  God's  judgment,  we  cannot  conceive.  In  this  con- 
nection I  must  correct  an  expression  of  Prof.  Schwan's  (Minutes, 
p.  109).  He  says:  "If  Pastor  Allwardt  was  so  anxious  for 
private  negotiations,  let  him  explain  why  he  did  not  accept,  but 
declined  the  opportunity  offered  to  him  and  another  person?" 
In  this  way  these  gentlemen  always  question  the  honesty  of  their 
opponents,  and  never  take  back  their  charges,  but  allow  them 
to  stand,  if  they  find  they  cannot  go  on.  I  have  already  answered 
this  satisfactorily:  before  the  colloquium  agreed  upon  between 
Dr.  W.  and  Prof.  S.  Pres.  Schwan  had  agreed  with  Pres.  Fur- 
bringer  that  the  latter  should  first  deal  with  S.  Pres.  Schwan 
sent  the  letter  referred  to  to  me,  because  he  did  not  know  where 
S.  was  at  the  time;  he  remarked  that  if  he  wished,  I  too  might 
go  along  and  that  I  was  hereby  invited.  Schmidt  could  not  go, 
and  so  I  would  have  had  to  go  alone,  which  was  evidently  not 
the  object  of  the  invitation.  At  any  rate,  I  could  not  have  gone, 
since  I  was  commissioned  by  Synod  to  make  a  trip  to  Minnesota 
and  had  to  go  as  soon  as  I  received  notice  of  the  appointed  time. 
For  this  same  reason  I  could  not  go  to  synodical  conference,  to 
which  I  had  been  elected  and  which  would  have  been  much  more 
agreeable  than  the  journey  to  Minnesota.  On  this  account  I  am 
put  down  as  a  hypocrite,  and  this  by  the  Reverend  General  Pres- 
ident of  Synod. 

The  same  conviction  that  was  awakened  in  me  by  the 
Minutes  of  '79  was  awakened  in  Prof.  Schmidt  also ;  only  a 
public  testimony  was  now  in  place.  While  I  wanted  to  publish 
only  a  single  pamphlet  and  send  it  to  all  the  pastors,  he  had 
decided  upon,  the  publication  of  a  periodical.  The  first  number 
appeared,  as  is  well  known,  in  January,  1880,  the  fourth  month 
after  the  disgraceful  Synod  of  '79 :  from  this  all  can  judge  for 
themselves  what  is  to  be  thought  of  the  statement,  made  with  so 
much  emphasis  by  the  St.  Louis  men,  that  Schmidt,  exasperated 
at  the  synodical  convention  held  in  May,  1878,  began  the  con- 
troversy. 


802  A   Testimony  Against  the  False  Doctrine,  Etc. 

Prof.  S.  had  sent  his  paper  to  pastors  and  teachers  only;  he 
did  not  want  to  introduce  the  controversy  into  the  congrega- 
tions. Dr.  W.  answered  in  the  " Luther aner."  "That  is  a  sharp 
move,"  said  some  one  at  the  time,  who  seemed  to  know  the 
Doctor  pretty  well ;  "he  now  wants  to  work  up  the  congregations 
rapidly."  Certainly!  And  how  did  he  proceed!  Not  by  stating 
and  defending  the  points  actually  in  dispute  and  the  propositions 
attacked  by  us.  He  laid  down  entirely  new  theses,  which  for  the 
most  part  were  quite  correct,  whilst  he  touched  on  the  matters 
in  controversy  so  equivocally,  that  one  could  understand  them 
either  way.  Now  already  Dr.  W.  came  forward  with  the  open 
untruth,  that  the  controversy  really  turned  on  the  question 
whether  our  salvation  lies  alone  in  God's  hand,  or  also  in  our 
own !  As  long  as  he  succeeds  in  this  deception,  so  long,  but  only 
so  long,  will  he  have  the  success  about  which  alone  he  seems  to 
be  concerned.  That  the  deception  will  finally  come  to  naught,  we 
do  not  doubt  for  a  moment.  Our  contest  is  wearying,  but  not 
hopeless.  May  God  the  Lord  have  mercy  on  His  Church,  restore 
the  erring  and  expose  the  wilful  persecutors  of  the  truth.   Amen. 

H.  A.  Allwardt. 


Date  Due 

s^^ 

jLjii'  frT 

m^. 

^XttEZS 

3^*.- 

MAR   31  t 

3 

MWi«t9? 

A 

$) 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

i 


